America, Once Upon A Time by Plainly Spoken

Our American society is going through tumultuous times. Politically the country is continuing the heightened battles of beliefs that have been exacerbated by ten years of war and unpopular governance by the party in power. Acerbic demonization of the political opposition is daily fair for consumption by the people coming from the mainstream and social media in America. The American economy has been beaten down with people struggling to maintain their livelihood, leading to comparisons with the Great Depression in the intensity of the difficulties. Families are fighting to hold on to their homes, with a foreclosure epidemic still unchecked from years of suspect lending practices and inflated housing markets.

Corporations deemed too big to fail are bailed out by government, ultimately garnering hatred from the citizenry for the “special” treatment that allowed these corporations to hand out huge sums of cash to their leadership in the form of bonuses. This has lead to a backlash against corporate America by protest groups around the country – some peaceful and some not. The American society is weary from the continuing military conflicts that have resulted in the deaths of over 6000 service personnel and thousands of wounded. Many in our society see what they believe is a continued deterioration of the morality of society in the more public displays of lifestyles choices, whether it is the destruction of tradition marriage by same sex couples, the increases in the displays of sexuality by our children, or the negative consequences of bullying, as examples. Many perceive that the government continues its expansion into a monstrous behemoth that blatantly ignores the founding documents of the nation, giving to itself the legality to act against the rights and freedoms of the people. It is these ongoing beliefs and feelings that lead people to wish for an earlier time in America when life and society were “better.”

Those wishes come from the remembrances of time periods in their lives when they felt the world around them was in more of a balance. It was a time of peace and enjoyment, a “once upon a time” moment in their lifetime. Is it a reality that they are recalling and longing for, or is it a false construction?

One commenter in a recent thread said that a return to the fifties would be good since they believed that to be a more moral time in our society. I would agree that the fifties did have a different morality displayed in public as the “face” of society, but did that mean there was a stronger morality? We can ask some of the very people that experienced the fifties for their thoughts on the morality of America. We can start with Black Americans living in the South. They were suffering under the idea of “separate, but equal” that was accepted by society as providing the Black American population their rights. They were restricted from white schools, compelled to ride in the back of the bus, kept from the lunch counters, bathrooms, and drinking fountains reserved for whites. They were prevented at every turn from exercising their right to vote, prevented by law in many states from being able to marry a white person. They were harassed, mistreated, beaten, murdered, and in cases burned out of their homes by white supremacists wearing white sheets. Will they agree that the fifties (or later into the sixties) was a more moral time in America?

However, we shouldn’t just take one groups opinion. We can ask the thousands who were victims of McCarthyism in America. Many of these people were forced to testify not only against others, but against themselves in which their rights under the US Constitution may well have been violated. It was a time when innuendo and supposition led to the destruction of one’s reputation. Character assassination was the daily life they suffered under from the mid 1940’s through the fifties. They were blacklisted for guilty by association or from illegal and immoral activities of the FBI and elected representatives of the very society they belonged to. Some were imprisoned for their refusals to aid in this modern day witch hunt, until their cases were overturned – eventually – by the courts. Would these Americans say that the fifties were a more moral time in America?

I am no better than others. I have thought that it would be great if America could come back to a better time in society. I could pick two periods where I believe this would be true, only one of which I will discuss here. That would be the period of the mid to later sixties. I was a kid living in a small rural town in a Midwest state. Life was fun and wonderful. Days of summer spent swimming and fishing in the local lake, riding our bikes all over town, Saturday matinee movies, snow forts in winter time, ice skating, sledding, and generally shielded from the adult world by family – letting kids be kids while grownups handled the complexities of life. That was my reality. But, that is only a world that existed inside a bubble. Outside of it the ability to look back in hindsight shows me that an honest appraisal of that time had its own difficulties.

Black Americans were still being discriminated against and continued their protest marches and civil non-violent disobedience demanding their rights and equalities guaranteed them under the US Constitution. Much of society was still judging them by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. The ongoing Vietnam War provided the counter-culture anti-war movement the grounds to protest around the nation for the end of the war and an altering of society. These protests and the war itself were the nightly fare of televised news programs showing a rift in society that existed between the generations. I would doubt that all the men drafted to fight in the jungles of Southeast Asia would tell me this was a better time in America, nor would the families of over 58,000 dead. Many young men who disagreed with being forced to fight stood up for their rights and freedoms by leaving the country and going to Canada. Yet, for many years (and even today in some minds) these “draft dodgers” were considered deserters and their behavior treasonous (I used to think this way – of which I am ashamed of today). Their actions were criminalized in law and they faced stiff punishments if they ever returned. I doubt they would consider this time to be a better time in America. Maybe it would be proper to consider these men patriots for taking a stand against what they saw as a tyrannical government intrusion upon their rights?

In the end there is no going back to a better society, for regardless of when that time may there is the other side of the coin in what those times contained that shows its own ugliness. That does not mean that we should stop working towards what we believe would be a better society, but instead of wishing for what was really not better for all, we should choose to take the elements we found good and bring them forth to move society to a better existence.

We have problems today and we will have problems tomorrow. Society is in constant change and flux and what was doesn’t mean it should be what is since to go back to a “better” time means rebuilding society as it was then, which wasn’t all good either.

Comments

Well…you have framed the debate in such a way that it will be difficult to argue. You seem to think that the argument is that there was a perfect time. There has never been a perfect time and I have never bought into that idea. I absolutely believe there was a simpler time, and there is no harm in working toward that end. When you get right down to it, family reigns supreme. From there you can put thousands of irons in the fire. In simpler times family meant mom, dad, kids. Today’s family means whoever at the top, kids, and technology. Which in turn affects my family. And around we go….

A classic for sure! An anthem for hunters but for regular folks too. For me it means you really don’t need to much in life to make yourself happy. I remember you saying you knew Ted personally. Good luck this season CM.

Yes I do know Ted and have had the enjoyment of hunting with him a few times. He is in Michigan hunting now back on his place in Jackson, MI. My Goddaughter, her parents and I were over visiting just this past weekend. My Goddaughter, who is 12, took her first Russian Boar with a bow. She even stalked it for about an hour to get the shot. Thanks to parental guidence she will be a strong and rightfull addition to the Hunting world.

Strangely enough…cloth diapers is what started a new revolution in my family. My grandparents and parents started a coin laundry in 1954. That brought about local families bringing diapers to the laundry for much hotter water to get the (skid marks) soil out. A particular customer asked my dad if he would be willing to work out a drop off situation for his diapers. My dad agreed. That particular customer happened to work for the airlines and hooked my dad up with the (handshake) non-contract for Northwest airlines. We became the biggest single laundry in the world for Northwest. And trust me all 8 of us kids were expected to work six days a week, then put our own selves through college. That handshake agreement was good for 60 yrs. Northwest then took a bid of half what I was charging from one national laundry and all Northwest linen was funnelled into this one chain as opposed to an independent laundry in many cities. I was the only laundry left standing for a full year after the switch to the larger competitor. In the end, the national corporation swallowed me up too! And that is your laundry lesson of the day! 🙂

I’ve had the good fortune to visit this family business and you can still see through the last remaining pieces of equipment how this once operated and the effort, struggles, long hours, and ultimate success was realized. Americana at its finest!

I will get you the address. I don’t have it as I just know how to get there from Jackson. Sunrise acers is actually closer to Homer than Jackson. It is off of I-99. I have emailed my hunting buddy who has the destination in his GPS. As soon as he emails me back I will send it to you. It may be tomorrow so check back then.

Actually just the opposite – that there is no “perfect” time at all. The point is that whatever period a person may desire to return we have to realize there is a second side to the coin of that particular time that made it not so perfect then.

This is not to say – as I pointed out in the article – that there are aspects we find beneficial from an earlier time that we can bring forward to better society.

When I think of the times we are in it always comes down to my kids. I believe my childhood was much simpler with more discipline than the youth have today. Everything is so structured for them and I agree with Anita (!), that while there certainly is an upside to technology, there is a real downside too. (ie effects of C.O.D. vs GI Joe?) And then there is the debt we are burying them in……

You see, human nature doesn’t really change much. It’s why you can’t run away from your problems by moving – people are the same everywhere. Only the superficial things ever change.

Have you read accounts of the so-called simpler times? They were just as complex, just in different ways.

The comparison I would make is this: You know how you’ll see someone doing something and say to yourself “well I could do that!”? And then you try it and realize there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye? Things that seem really simple, say canning fruit, turns out to be absurdly involved, doesn’t it? It’s the distance and the ignorance which makes things seem simple – you’re not involved, you’re not there, you haven’t experienced it (or if you have it was too long ago) so that you don’t think of the complexities.

Very wise, especially for such a young buck. There is complexity in a lot of things, although some people adapt easier than others in some areas. I think that adaptability has a lot to do success along with trial and error combined with tenacity. As a kid I was driving farm equipment at a very young age, but I could not figure out how to ride a two wheel bike for the life of me. I kept falling until one day I just decided that I had enough of being left behind. So I got on the damn thing and rode it. I guess it was mind over matter.

Our society today has to deal with far more complexity than they did in the 50’s and 60’s, but at the same time life in general has gotten a lot easier; a great deal of which can be attributed to technology.

Take the IT world and computers. It has advanced a great deal in 30 years, but the principles of IT have not really changed much. We still store, edit, retrieve and send data, but there are a number of IT professionals from the 80’s and 90’s that can’t seem to adapt, or won’t to the newer technology and processes.

Adaptibility, fortitude, tenacity and effort are principles needed to make it in any society or that society’s point in history.

I think technology offers another analogue of this phenomenon. I call it’s Matthew’s Law (not be confused with Mathius’s Laws, ie Poeple. Are. Lazy, etc).

Matthew’s Law: No matter how fast or powerful your desktop computer, your day to day use will always be plagued by comparable load-times, freezes, glitches, and lags.

I remember my first computer – an Macintosh LCII with 16 megahertz and 4mb of RAM – and it booted up just about as fast as my current PC with 1.59 gigahertz and 3GB of RAM. Why is this?

The answer is that people, being people, have filled in the vacuum. They saw excess capacity and increased their demand on the system. This is why Matthew’s Law is true. Once computers are 10gHz, they’ll still lag and stall exactly as they do now, only they’ll be doing much more. The reason is that the current delays are at the tolerance of the average person – we can make more demanding software and operating systems (of course we can!) but people wouldn’t be happy using them with the crazy lags. Conversely, we could go back to older software which would run at blazing speeds, but people wouldn’t be happy using them without all the bells and whistles. So we found a happy medium.

The point, if I have point, (which is always questionable when I post here) is that people make things as complicated as they’re comfortable with, then slightly more. Whether it is in computers or societies or computers. If it’s too simple, they try to squeeze more out of it. So we got all this excess capacity due to technology, and we put it to work in other areas. Net-net: just as complex.

OK, but just for kicks and giggles lets see how you would describe a Database to person that has no idea what it is: Keep in mind they know nothing of computers, but do have an above average level of intelligence and are otherwise a functioning human. And here are some more:

What do these mean:

-VSAM
-VTAM
-ISAM
-CICS
-SME
-ERP

And your thoughts on the Cloud. Is it a totally new concept or just a revision of an older service?

Just having some fun, but curious if you have been around long enough to know some or all of this stuff.

Virtual Storage Access Method searchable file — by ‘keyed’ fields — alternate indexes optional
Virtual Telecom Access Method — systems stuff — you had to have it — was it external comm? was it what permitted virtual machines?
Indexed Storage Access Method — flat file had to be read from start to end I think
Customer Information Control System — the onlline – mainframe’s interactive screens — had to have maps
SME ??? something to do with linux
ERP err…

I don’t think we’ll ever agree. One example of my simpler life is the fact that the world shut down at night. Yeah, yeah NYC never sleeps. But this 24/7 information age we are living now leaves no time for your mind to settle. It’s constant noise. Much of it is useful, much of it is not. . So we’re in a feedback loop that never stops. Don’t you think that leads to a bunch of stressed out people? Didn’t used to be that way. I can list other simple life things but we’d still never agree.

It’s so quiet where I live i can hear radio waves, and when a plane flys over, I almost run and hide 🙂 The only noise I hear is an occasional coyote pack howling in the wind. Where I used to live it was 24/7 dogs and television sets. I thought I was going insane, especially where the noise didn’t seem to disturb anyone else in the neighborhood. (So YES, you can move away from your problems!)

Daaang, I’m jealous! I live damn near under a runway! I can hear the run-up of engines after any maintenance is done .If that’s 3am then its 3am. I’m also at the intersection of a NS EW railroad and NS and EW expressways. Calgon…!

I know at little about ‘airports’ as I once lived not too far from Westover AFB during the Vietnam war, but not right next door. It is so quiet at night here, I turn a fan on so I can sleep! I am permanently damaged from living in Massachusetts!!!

I may not have been around in the days of yore, but I can tell you that human nature doesn’t really change. Yes, things were slower, but there were more steps to be done by hand. Yes, this, but that. When you were living and working in the 50’s to 70’s, you didn’t have your days filled with complicated little tasks and minutia? When you drove to work, your commute wasn’t made more complicated by the stick shift and non-existent ABS breaks? When you wanted to talk to your brother in another state, you didn’t have to use the party line to call an operator to get connected?

All the complexity gets washed out by time and distance – it was so far removed from your current life that you don’t even think about it. Think hard. If you wanted to send a message, you had to go to the corner, buy stamps (with cash, not credit), write your message (manually, not computerized), put it in a package, and mail it. And if you had no cash, you had to go to the bank – no ATMs. Far more complex than today. At least, from your perspective.. the army of people whose job is to keep that system functioning are invisible to you.

But don’t you understand? These things are VERY COMPLEX for Mathius. They involve buying equipment, driving to the lake, putting together a pole, getting bait, casting, retrieving, and then casting and retrieving. God, not only is it complex but it is repetitive.

In his world it is much less complex to just look at a picture of a FISH on his COMPUTER SCREEN.

Of course he is not aware of the bazillions of electrons and other particles bombarding his brain while staring at the computer screen. All the time driving him ever so closer to the brink of hypertension and anxiety. When it finally happens he will conclude that the solitude and simple life has driven him mad. He will seek out more complexity. He might even resort to turning on the TV with his “remote control” device.

Or any of the other quiet and simple things? I like to read. Sit in a room with the lights low and read. Right now, I’m working my way through Caravan by James Michener… actually, now that I think of it, I want to post something I saw in it.. will do that below in a little bit..

Whether the people needed to keep my email working are visible to me or not is irrelevant to the question of whether our world is more complex today than 100 years ago.

When my standard transmission truck broke down in my youth I would fix it. By your standard this a measure of “very complex”.

Today I can’t fix it, let alone get my hands on the bolts I need to remove. I call the tow truck and pay some guy to fix it. By your standards this is a measure of “simple”.

Your hypothesis is quite silly, in my humble opinion. Of course mankind always utilizes available technology to the fullest extent possible, given KNOWLEDGE at that time. That use is limited by understanding, not by some mysterious “capacity for complexity”. You would have to travel to the stone age to find humans whose “capacity” was significantly lower than ours is today.

The next thing you will try to tell us is that humans are nothing but a machine. 🙂

Slight critique – don’t agree much with how you pose lifestyle choice…..

(1) The increases in displays of sexuality by “our children” – now how in the world do we give props to an inherent morality of “traditional marriages” wherein children of those marriages display their sexuality (I don’t agree that its a “lifestyle choice”) as you reference? How is a traditional marriage somehow more moral if the by-product is generations of kids that have gone so hyper-sexual? Parents pay for cable and TV and clothes and magazines and provide/don’t provide guidance around displaying / not displaying sexuality. It would seem you should argue that the traditional marriage and hence family unit has failed in a colossal way.

(2) Traditional Marriage has NOT been destroyed by same sex couples (married or not). There simply is no argument here. Your traditional marriage and anyone else’s for that matter is as strong as you make it. I am continually astonished / flummoxed / stupefied that the same conservative bent that carries forth a strong mandate of personal responsibility / own your lot in life / make your own hay seeks to blame the homosexuals next door for somehow ruining traditional marriage. Opposite sex couples have been ruining marriage for hundreds of years.

I understand your thoughts. I have no argument with them. I was speaking to perceptions, especially because it is perceptions of the good old days that we long for again. I was then showing that while some of what is desired existed, there was another side of the coin.

While opposite sex couples have been destroying marriage, also consider that they had a lot of help, from government.

Bullying is a behavior choice that has serious social consequences – which is why I included it as part of the example.

1) The continuing acceptance of sexuality by the masses, which is promoted by the media and liberal crowds only makes it more difficult for those who don’t believe that sex is an act, object, or topic to be displayed or rightously promoted outside of the family unit. And as a result, more family units loose this battle. Raising children via traditional values has become more difficult, but it is as much the fault of those opposed to those “traditional” values as it is the family unit for accepting certain deviances.
2) Yes, can’t argue here, but again it is the value and strength of the commitment made and the effort put forth that determines the success of a union; regardless of sexual genetics.
3) Yeah, although values taught and enforced influence individual choices.

Amazingly enough, I agree with you 100%! Straight couples have been screwing up traditional marriage for a long time because no one takes their vows seriously anymore. It’s easier to get a divorce than to take the time and make the effort to make a marriage work. Marriage is a job, it takes 2 and it doesn’t matter if those 2 are the same sex or not.

I was born in the mid-fifties and spent my youth in part on a farm and in the suburbs. That was because Dad took a job at International Harvester and we moved into the city. He and Mom still worked the farm along with my uncles and cousins, although less and less as Dad rose up through the management ranks. My brother and I were however afforded the advantages of both lifestyles, as we were loaned out during planting and harvest season. As a result I am pretty sure my brother and I learned the value of hard work, self reliance and family honor. We also learned the difference between a hand-up and a hand-out. Sunday morning was spent in church (even though my brother and I did not want to be there), chores were assigned and completed, a leather belt was not only a device to hold you pants up, and sometimes you couldn’t always do what you wanted when you wanted too.

We also learned that your word was your bond, manners were strickly enforced, and good grades were important, but common sense was more so. We were taught that land ownership was critical to stability, but ownership also came with stewardship. My brother and I learned to hunt and fish at an early age; we were both 9 when we got our first shotgun and we were expected on hunting adventures. ( In those early years he and I were more bird dogs than we were hunters, but that was fun too). I was birthing cattle at 9, driving a tractor at 11, a combine at 13 and helping my uncles figure out next years seed crop at 15.

My brother and I both dealt with “bussing” in the 70’s, Afro-American month and civil differences in both junior-high and high school (yeah, back then they called it Junior High, not middle school), farm boys were generally stronger, farm girls were better looking, but that city girls were easier. Viet Nam was pretty much over buy the time I graduated High School, although I had older friends that did go; some of which came back in a body bag.

My father worked for the same company for 35 years, my uncle for 53 (He got credit for the 4 years he spent in WWII) and my mother was a house wife who cooked, cleaned, canned food, saved every nickle and penny she could, and made sure my brother and I followed the rules, and if we didn’t Dad delt out the punishment. (BTW: For those that didn’t get the earlier reference of the belt that was Dad’s “device” of choice).

I guess the point of all this is that those lessons, values, lifestyle and traditions contributed to how I live my life, and how I have taught my children to live theirs. I don’t think the “times” we lived in make as much of a difference as do the values we employ. I do believe that rural life affords our youth more advantages to proper values, and those growing up in a rural community face less temptation than do inner-city kids, but all in all it is the elders that provide an example regardless of the geography, and the calendar date means very little.

Hope all here as well, prepared for colder months, are spend time with those that matter and are enjoying each day.

Most men fear the future because they know someone else (e.g.the government) is planning it for them, and it may not go they way that they want it to in spite of being told that the governments intentions are to advance the “greater good”. Most men have no certainty whatsoever that “the greater good” coincides with what is good for them in any way, shape or form. In fact, most men realize that “the greater good” is probably going to at least inconvenience, and probably financially or physically HARM them individually in some way or another.

Free men on the other hand may have some trepidation about the future, but that is mitigated and overcome by their ability to PLAN for the future based on their own self-interest and their own decision-making. It doesn’t GUARANTEE that the future will go the way a free man desires, but it gives him the best opportunity to craft the future he desires.

Hey! I rather liked the 90’s.. you know, other than the music, and Barney, and Power Rangers, and Pepsi Clear, and parachute pants, and Monica, Y2K bug fears, and boy bands, and SUVs, and OJ, and the tech bubble, and AOL, and political correctness, and the Spice Girls, and the Macarena, and reality TV, and Beavis and Butthead…

My kids were too old for Barney, drank Diet coke, wore jeans or suits, made a lot of money supplying contractors to a variety of companies needing help with Y2K, listened to Country musice, OJ was guilty, never have been PC, would leave the reception area when they played the Macarena and never have watched to much TV. So, the 90″s were ok. The real stress of life started in the early 2000, but we are through all that and having fun again.

Hope you are well young man and Oh, I know we didn’t make it to the series, but my Tigers beat your damn Yankees.

Alright, lets get serious here. “Going back to a better time” is a fantasy. Live with it. Morality wasn’t really in much better shape at any previous time either, people were just better at covering up immorality (at least in my opinion). So, what to do?

Best option, encourage real education, self-reliance, and freedom. Bad people are ALWAYS going to do bad things, but the biggest problems arise when you INSTITUTIONALIZE the ability of bad people to do bad things. MANY people will behave in a more moral manner when you do not institutionalize the ability of someone else to IMPOSE THEIR MORALITY ON OTHERS.

Free people, acting in their own self-interest does not always yield “good results”; however, it yields “good results” a hell of a lot higher percentage of the time than any other option, which makes it the only option that gives each and every individual the maximum opportunity for good results.

So in short, don’t try to “go back”. Move forward, and keep pushing ahead in spite of all of the numbskulls that try to tell you that their “collectivist” system is the only way to “force” the desired results. Tell them that you will stick with (truly) educated, self-reliant individuals acting in their own self-interest.

Of course, the root of this is to truly educate people, which means dismantling the government monopoly on education and pretty much starting from scratch as far as education is concerned, but that is the necessary price for progress! Look at the number of highly intelligent people just on this site alone that believe that by managing the forest they are doing what is best for all of the individual trees! Unfortunately they “cannot see the trees for the forest” due to their previous “education”.

True story: A few years ago a friend of mine had a son in 5th grade. For “social studies” the kid brings home a paper with a list of “problems” down one side of the page, and a list of government agencies down the other side of the page. The assignment was to match up each “problem” with the government agency which would best help you with that particular problem (!!!).

My friend had his kid write in “for this problem I would talk to my priest or pastor”, “for this problem I would seek help from my family”, “for this problem I would seek help from a local private charity” and similar answers like that. He was (of course) given a “D” on the assignment. I think his teacher feared the parent-teacher meeting that would ensue if she had given him an “F” like she probably wanted to….

So lets talk about one “moral” issue relative to then and now. Teen pregnancy and promiscuity. Have times really gotten worse?

I do have one criticism of the data comparison to trends since 1950. There is an inference that a reduction in “shotgun” weddings helps account for reductions in births but an increase in out of wedlock births. But this ignores the fact that “teens” getting married for “love” was more accepted in the 50’s and early 60’s. The “Cultural Revolution” opened the door to the idea that putting off marriage was a good thing.

Anyhow, I think you will all find this interesting. It has a little something for folks on both sides of the argument.

The main “value” that I see that has been reduced (in my opinion) is simple respect for other people and other people’s property. I think that this directly correlates with a reduction in freedom and the growth of “entitlements”. If you feel you are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor, you aren’t going to respect other people or their property.

Hope you are well my friend and looking forward to harvesting some fur bear’en critters. Now to your question. No doubt teen pregnancy has dropped, but teen sex has increased dramatically. Promiscuity in general has increased significantly in the last 50 years, and all due to what I said earlier; it has been accepted. Media, peer pressure, parential approval, safe sex promotion at the school level and the promotion of self-entitlement have all contributed to our youth thinking as they do and doing what they want regardless of the ramifications. And that is because the ramifications that I would have been forced to deal with in the 60’s and 70’s are not enforced by parents and society in general.

In general we have become more liberal minded when it comes to self satisfaction, but entitlement minded when it comes to accepting the responsibility of our actions and decisions. It is not my fault because: my parents are divorced, I was an only, middle, youngest child, I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, my father/mother were poor, drunks, or ignored me, etc, etc.

We have become a society of excuse reasoning verses responsibility taking people’s.

I am well my friend, but will not be able to hunt this year. I am caught between STATE RESIDENCY requirements.

If I recall the study I cited refutes your assumptions about promiscuity increasing “significantly”.

When my kids were in HS a study came out showing an increase in “religious” activity among teens. I also know many of those “liberated” young girls of the 60’s and 70’s who grew up to be mothers telling their daughters to hold off.

I do agree that our “cultural” or “moral” norms have declined. And lack of respect is a big part. But it really is hard to quantify these changes as they can vary by region and community.

Maybe it was due to the fact that I had matured a great deal between 18 and 19, or that I was a starter on my college football team as a freshman, but I had a lot more promiscuity in college than I did in High School. As a matter of fact there was a lot more promiscuity in general in college than in High School. Maybe it was the college and the region (Ball State University and rural Indiana) but statistically that was part of the so-called Bible Belt.

I really do believe that the number of teen engaging in sex has increased significantly since the 50’s. Maybe the numbers have tapered off a bit since the 60’s, but some of the information I have seen in the last few years indicates that teens are more sexually active than you or I were at that age.

When I get a chance I will do some additional research.

Sorry you won’t get to take part in the annual harvest of fur bear’en critters, but I am sure there will still be plenty next year.

Most of them are not truly ready for the consequences. I know enough grown women with regrets to believe that there must be something positive to waiting.

As for me, I am more concerned with the dehumanizing of sex if you will, by our cultural keepers, Hollywood. Was it not you who claimed it is nothing but a physical thing? Just like running, situps or getting off the couch. This represents a breakdown in our understanding of the psychological things that go with sex, as human beings and not cattle.

Also it depends on what teen, in my view. Thirteen vs Nineteen for example.

But for the definitive answer on why not, you must wait until you have a teenage daughter. It will be quite evident then. Although still unexplainable beyond………..BECAUSE.

There are words which are considered “offensive” which you cannot say in public. The words themselves are not intrinsically offensive. It is only the public perception that there is “more to it” that creates the psychological issue. The same is true of sex. Physically, it is nothing more than vigorous exercise with a risk of sexually transmitted disease or parasitic infection (pregnancy) – both of which are mitigated by the use of proper protection. But the mystique around it has created the perception that there is “more to it” that creates the psychological issue.

To me, it is completely possible to separate out the physical act from the emotional entanglement. In many cultures, this is normal. However, in American (Puritanical) culture, we have been brainwashed to fuse these two concepts into a Gordian knot where girls are led to believe that sex equals love, which is absolutely not always true.

There is absolutely something to be said for the evolutionary pressure to keep mates together for the sake of their progeny, thus “tricking” our brains into loving our mates. But this does not necessarily equate to a one-to-one relationship.

Of course sex is great-and yes we can have sex that is reduced to nothing more than rutting for need or satisfaction. That is -if both people are emotionally able to do so-if not-one person or both tend to get hurt-or pregnant-than it isn’t just a matter of rutting anymore-a child is involved. But the question is do we want to- as a matter of social norms to define SEX as nothing more than rutting for fun.

Yea, I was around in the 60’s-saw the hurt, pain and sometimes death caused by all the drugs and free love BS. Also have friends who regret their participation because they are living, breathing, caring, emotional human beings.

Sex IS nothing more than rutting for fun (unless it is rutting for money or rutting for procreation). The fact that we enjoy it more or attach special meaning when we do it with the ones we love says less about sex and more about our feelings for our spouses.

I can play backgammon with a stranger and enjoy it, but it’s far more “special/enjoyable” to play with my wife. Plus she’s really talented at it. (draw your own innuendos).

As for getting pregnant, I have always stipulated that appropriate precautions should always be taken (for STD’s as well). Yes, risks are still involved but they are extremely low probability – far worse, say, than getting heart disease the bacon you had for breakfast.

As for getting (emotionally) hurt, I have also always stipulated that, as with all interactions, it should be honest. If I want to have sex and not a relationship, I should make that clear from the outset. For a guy to manipulate or mislead (and it’s always the guy, isn’t it?) a woman into having sex on false pretenses that there’s emotion involved, is simply dishonest and is not something I would ever support. The problem, of course, is that society has set things up in such a way that an honest approach (“I want sex, not a relationship”) translates to near zero odds of actually having sex – this puts pressure on men to lie (since they’re generally not going to be happy being celibate), which leads to false expectations which, ironically, leads to more emotional harm.

Let’s not do the play on words-you are much better at it than I am 🙂 -sex being more fun with someone you love is what makes it -not just rutting.

More information than I need -but congratulations. 🙂 My husband feels the same way about me and I him-or at least he claims too. That love thing seems to have that affect.

Now for the rest-you can stipulate all you want-but you are relating to humans-who make mistakes and don’t always know when they are going to become emotionally attached-even if they told the truth at the time.

And -NO -woman do the same to men-they are just more likely, in my experience, to become emotionally attached whether they wanted too or not.

Wow! If your response isn’t a perfect example of the decline of morals in society I don’t know what is! A parasitic infection is a pregnancy? I see why you use the term rutting as you are certainly a pig.

I fail to see why you get to define a CHANGE in morality as a DECLINE in morality. What about what I’ve said empirically is worse rather than just different?

You’re a Puritan. It comes from upbringing. Your parents were probably Puritans, too. Your society was Puritanical. Your education was Puritanical. Your friends were Puritans. This formed an idea in your head of what sex is and what it should mean. It’s bible-thumper stuff. Sex should be between one man and one woman. Sex should only be between people who love each other (preferably married). Sex should be done in the dark, under the covers, in the missionary position. Blah blah blah blah blah. WHY?

And why is any deviation from that “ideal” met with a belief that it’s inherently a decline? You keep calling it a decline, but that doesn’t make it so.

I way too often say to my wife: “The world is upside down. I wish it was like when we were kids (60’s-70’s) … but the truth is (as you very poignantly depicted it), I was so damn ignorant to what was going on around me (living in a very white/Italian-Jewish neighborhood — that would later become a study in racism (Canarsie, Brooklyn–the books are on amazon). I was in my own little world, very protected and very privileged (compared to cousins of mine who lived (and still live) in the poorer section of Harlem (attempts to gentrify aside).

I don’t know what the answers are any more than anyone here does … but I do know that the Arab Spring wasn’t a fad. It may not happen overnight … probably long after I”m dead, but sooner or later, inequalities (that cannot be deemed “fair” by market explanation) will bring the chickens (workers) home to roost. Whether it will be a good thing or not remains to be seen, but ignoring inequality in any form is a recipe for disaster and we’re well on our way here in the good old US&A.

The Divider vs. the Thinker
While Obama readies an ugly campaign, Paul Ryan gives a serious account of what ails America.

By PEGGY NOONAN

People are increasingly fearing the divisions within, even the potential coming apart of, our country. Rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue: The things that divide us are not new, yet there’s a sense now that the glue that held us together for more than two centuries has thinned and cracked with age. That it was allowed to thin and crack, that the modern era wore it out.

What was the glue? A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly—
“To whom much is given much is expected”; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That’s from “The Killer Angels,” a historical novel about the Civil War fought to right a wrong the Founders didn’t right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.

But there is a broad fear out there that we are coming apart, or rather living through the moment we’ll look back on as the beginning of the Great Coming Apart. Economic crisis, cultural stresses: “Half the country isn’t speaking to the other half,” a moderate Democrat said the other day. She was referring to liberals of her acquaintance who know little of the South and who don’t wish to know of it, who write it off as apart from them, maybe beneath them.

To add to the unease, in New York at least, there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance. If you are a New Yorker, chances are pretty high you hate what the great investment firms did the past 15 years or so to upend the economy. Yet you feel on some level like you have to be protective of them, because Wall Street pays the bills of the City of New York. Wall Street tax receipts and Wall Street business—restaurants, stores—keep the city afloat. So you want them up and operating and vital, you don’t want them to leave—that would only make things worse for people in trouble, people just getting by, and young people starting out. You know you have to preserve them just when you’d most like to deck them.
***

Where is the president in all this? He doesn’t seem to be as worried about his country’s continuance as his own. He’s out campaigning and talking of our problems, but he seems oddly oblivious to or detached from America’s deeper fears. And so he feels free to exploit divisions. It’s all the rich versus the rest, and there are a lot more of the latter.

Twenty twelve won’t be “as sexy” as 2008, he said this week. It will be all brute force. Which will only add to the feeling of unease.

Occupy Wall Street makes an economic critique that echoes the president’s, though more bluntly: the rich are bad, down with the elites. It’s all ad hoc, more poetry slam than platform. Too bad it’s not serious in its substance.

There’s a lot to rebel against, to want to throw off. If they want to make a serious economic and political critique, they should make the one Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner make in “Reckless Endangerment”: that real elites in Washington rigged the system for themselves and their friends, became rich and powerful, caused the great cratering, and then “slipped quietly from the scene.”

It is a blow-by-blow recounting of how politicians—Democrats and Republicans—passed the laws that encouraged the banks to make the loans that would never be repaid, and that would result in your lost job. Specifically it is the story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage insurers, and how their politically connected CEOs, especially Fannie’s Franklin Raines and James Johnson, took actions that tanked the American economy and walked away rich. It began in the early 1990s, in the Clinton administration, and continued under the Bush administration, with the help of an entrenched Congress that wanted only two things: to receive campaign contributions and to be re-elected.

The story is a scandal, and the book should be the bible of Occupy Wall Street. But they seem as incapable of seeing government as part of the problem as Republicans seem of seeing business as part of the problem.

Which gets us to Rep. Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan receives much praise, but I don’t think his role in the current moment has been fully recognized. He is doing something unique in national politics. He thinks. He studies. He reads. Then he comes forward to speak, calmly and at some length, about what he believes to be true. He defines a problem and offers solutions, often providing the intellectual and philosophical rationale behind them. Conservatives naturally like him—they agree with him—but liberals and journalists inclined to disagree with him take him seriously and treat him with respect.

This week he spoke on “The American Idea” at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. He scored the president as too small for the moment, as “petty” in his arguments and avoidant of the decisions entailed in leadership. At times like this, he said, “the temptation to exploit fear and envy returns.” Politicians divide in order to “evade responsibility for their failures” and to advance their interests.

The president, he said, has made a shift in his appeal to the electorate. “Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy and resentment.”

But Republicans, in their desire to defend free economic activity, shouldn’t be snookered by unthinking fealty to big business. They should never defend—they should actively oppose—the kind of economic activity that has contributed so heavily to the crisis. Here Mr. Ryan slammed “corporate welfare and crony capitalism.”

“Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?” Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically connected solar energy firms like Solyndra? “Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?”

Rather than raise taxes on individuals, we should “lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive.” The “true sources of inequity in this country,” he continued, are “corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.” The real class warfare that threatens us is “a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society.”

If more Republicans thought—and spoke—like this, the party would flourish. People would be less fearful for the future. And Mr. Obama wouldn’t be seeing his numbers go up.

What to say-I think the reference to the “glue” that held us together is important. I think patriotism is that glue and the glue is our founding principals. The idea that our underlying principals of freedom and equality in possibilities-would help us to correct any missteps, any inequalities that our human failings have created. We are losing those principals-the founding that created “United We Stand” and as we lose those principals, and replacing them with slavery to the elite, we are losing the glue that united us. Which is a part of that desire to return to a simpler, more patriotic, more United America.

” The real class warfare that threatens us is “a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society.” Freddie top exec’s got 10 million in bonuses and are asking for 6 billion to offset a poor third quarter……

Report: 49 of Fortune 500 companies had negative federal tax rate in Obama’s first year

During the Obama administration’s first year, 49 U.S. corporations in the Fortune 500 paid a negative rate of income tax, some even receiving rebate checks from the Treasury Department, a report from Citizens for Tax Justice disclosed Wednesday. In 2010, 37 Fortune 500 companies paid a negative federal tax rate.

Perennial offenders include energy companies Pepco Holdings, PG&E and El Paso, as well as General Electric.

Pepco’s average federal tax rate for the 2008–2010 period was negative-57.6 percent — a net loss for Uncle Sam. General Electric’s was negative-45.3 percent.

Citizens for Tax Justice tracked $222.7 billion in federal tax subsidies granted to 280 of America’s most profitable companies, which its report said “earned almost $1.4 trillion in pretax profits in the United States” between 2008 and 2010.

More than $114.8 billion went to just 25 of those companies, each receiving more than $1.9 billion.

The most taxpayer-subsidized industries were the financial, utilities, telecommunications and energy industries. Together, they received more than $123 billion over the three-year span.

The tax-reform advocacy group’s report also found that the 280 heavily subsidized corporations paid federal taxes at, on average, only about one-half the standard 35-percent corporate rate.

Some large companies’ profitability also seemed impacted to a large degree by government subsidies and contracts.

Boeing, for example, won a $35 billion contract to build new airborne tankers for the U.S. Air Force. The company reported pre-tax profits of $9.7 billion over the last three years, more than one-third of which ($3.5 billion) consisted of contract-related tax subsidies.

General Electric, similarly, received $8.4 billion in tax subsidies between 2008 and 2010. And mortgage lender Wells Fargo received the largest slice of the federal pie, at $17.9 billion.

Paul Ryan is one of the smartest men in the House by a long-shot. My parents live in his district. He is a great rarity – a politician who speaks what he really believes is the truth, even if it may be the unpopular thing to say. I am no fan of government, but I do like Paul Ryan. I think Mike Pence is pretty good too, but he is leaving the House to run for Indiana Governor shortly. I think he is frustrated by his lack of ability to influence much of anything in Washington and wants to work at the State level where he feels he may actually be able to have a positive influence.

From another time: Some cowboy poetry. I thought about my Texan friends here when I ran across this last night.

Lasca by Frank Deprez

I want free life and I want fresh air;
And I sigh for the canter after the cattle,
The crack of the whips like shots in a battle,
The medley of horns and hoofs and heads
That wars and wrangles and scatters and spreads;
The green beneath and the blue above,
And dash and danger, and life and love —
And Lasca!

Lasca used to ride
On a mouse-gray mustang close by my side,
With blue serape and bright-belled spur;
I laughed with joy as I looked at her!
Little knew she of books or of creeds;
An Ave Maria sufficed her needs;
Little she cared, save to be by my side,
To ride with me, and ever to ride,
From San Saba’s shore to LaVaca’s tide.
She was as bold as the billows that beat,
She was as wild as the breezes that blow;
From her little head to her little feet
She was swayed in her suppleness to and fro
By each gust of passion; a sapling pine
That grows on the edge of a Kansas bluff
And wars with the wind when the weather is rough
Is like this Lasca, this love of mine.

She would hunger that I might eat,
Would take the bitter and leave me the sweet;
But once, when I made her jealous for fun,
At something I’d whispered, or looked, or done,
One Sunday, in San Antonio,
To a glorious girl in the Alamo,
She drew from her garter a dear little dagger,
And — sting of a wasp! — it made me stagger!
An inch to the left, or an inch to the right,
And I shouldn’t be maundering here tonight;
But she sobbed, and, sobbing, so swiftly bound
Her torn reboso about the wound,That I quite forgave her. Scratches don’t count
In Texas, down by the Rio Grande.

Her eye was brown — a deep, deep brown;
Her hair was darker than her eye;
And something in her smile and frown,
Curled crimson lip and instep high,
Showed that there ran in each blue vein,
Mixed with the milder Aztec strain,
The vigorous vintage of Old Spain.
She was alive in every limb
With feeling to the finger tips;
And when the sun is like a fire,
And sky one shining, soft sapphire,
One does not drink in little sips.

The air was heavy, and the night was hot,
I sat by her side, and forgot – forgot;
Forgot the herd that were taking their rest,
Forgot that the air was close opprest,
That the Texas norther comes sudden and soon,
In the dead of night or the blaze of noon;
That, once let the herd at its breath take fright,
Nothing on earth can stop the flight;
And woe to the rider, and woe to the steed,
Who falls in front of their mad stampede!

Was that thunder? I grasped the cord
Of my swift mustang without a word.
I sprang to the saddle, and she clung behind.
Away! On a hot chase down the wind!
But never was fox hunt half so hard,
And never was steed so little spared,
For we rode for our lives, You shall hear how we fared
In Texas, down by the Rio Grande.

The mustang flew, and we urged him on;
There was one chance left, and you have but one;
Halt, jump to ground, and shoot your horse;
Crouch under his carcass and take your chance;
And, if the steers in their frantic course
Don’t batter you both to pieces at once,
You may thank your star; if not, goodby
To the quickening kiss and the long-drawn sigh,
And the open air and the open sky,
In Texas, down by the Rio Grande.

The cattle gained on us, and just as I felt
For my old six-shooter behind in my belt,
Down came the mustang, and down came we,
Clinging together — and, what was the rest?
A body that spread itself on my brest,
Two arms that shielded my dizzy head,
Two lips that hard on my lips were prest;
Then came thunder in my ears,
As over us surged the sea of steers,
Blows that beat blood into my eyes,
And when I could rise–
Lasca was dead!

I gouged out a grave a few feet deep,
And there in Earth’s arms I laid her to sleep;
And there she is lying, and no one knows;
And the summer shines and the winter snows;
For many a day the flowers have spread
A pall of petals over her head;
And the little gray hawk hangs aloft in the air,
And the sly coyote trots here and there,
And the black snake glides and glitters and slides
Into a rift in a cottonwood tree;
And the buzzard sails on,
And comes and is gone,
Stately and still like a ship at sea.
And I wonder why I do not care
For the things that are like the things that were.
Does half my heart lie buried there
In Texas, down by the Rio Grande?

Interesting that the “tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist”.. I mean, I would have thought they’d still exist, just exist elsewhere.. but apparently the NEA created them.. go figure..

” Many in our society see what they believe is a continued deterioration of the morality of society in the more public displays of lifestyles choices, whether it is the destruction of tradition marriage by same sex couples, the increases in the displays of sexuality by our children,”

‘Glee’ scoop: Why next week’s sex-themed episode, ‘The First Time,’ is a game-changer
by Tim Stack
Categories: Glee, Sexytimes, Television

Gleeks you MUST tune in for next week’s episode of Glee, called “The First Time.” It’s without a doubt one of Glee‘s best installments ever and features two popular couples on the show having sex for the first time.

SPOILER ALERT! STOP READING IF YOU DON’T WANT TO HEAR DETAILS!
glee

The couples losing their virginity? Finn and Rachel and…Kurt and Blaine! Yep, the couple — who was featured on the cover of EW’s Gay Teens on TV issue – finally decide to take the next step in their relationship. It’s all handled very delicately and is incredibly moving. I can’t think of another network series that’s taken a teenage gay relationship so far or been so progressive. The moment is instigated when another teen, Warbler member Sebastian (Grant Gustin), aggressively pursues Blaine. The trio actually have a very amusing triple date to West Lima’s only gay bar Scandals and run into none other than Karofsky (Max Adler). Look for a great moment between Karofsky and Kurt.

I see that it is “is a continued deteriorationCHANGE of the morality of society in the more public displays of lifestyles choices”

I don’t see how/why this is inherently negative. Some (like me) might argue that we Americans are far too Puritanical when it comes to things like sex.

Once again, just because things were a certain way when you grew up (when your personality was molded) doesn’t mean that a deviation from that standard is necessarily bad – it just means it’s different. You have successfully argued that things are different, but you have supplied no evidence to support any case that it is worse.

As for getting pregnant, I have always stipulated that appropriate precautions should always be taken (for STD’s as well). Yes, risks are still involved but they are extremely low probability

And no matter how much you educate, educate, educate those choices get thrown by the wayside and that “low probability” of which you speak becomes a very real unborn child or STD case. It is the same for those of us who teach our children, and hopefully instil in them, that sex for the sake of sex when they are not responsible for their lives (i.e. minors living at home) is not a good choice, they make poor choices.

When that 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old makes that choice that results in the birth of a child or getting a gift they can not rid themselves of who is then responsible for the consequences of their choice? Would your 14 year old be raising that child or would you and your wife?

But the same thing happens when you teach children abstain only. They do it anyway, only they don’t know enough to know that they should use protection.

Teenagers are going to have sex.

Certainties in life: Death, taxes, and teenagers have sex.

So they might as well be cautious? And why are we fighting the inevitable? They are little bundles of hormones – reason doesn’t stand a chance. So we tell them it’s something wrong, something shameful, something they can’t tell their parents about. And they do it anyway. Only know they’re ashamed, feeling guilty, and can’t talk to their parents if they have questions or need advise. This is better?

You assume sir that all people who teach their children – and I am only speaking to minors – to abstain do not teach their children about sex and sexuality.

My 12 year old knows and understands more than most 18 year old teens on the subject of sex. She has been taught, yet she could still end up making a poor choice. She is not taught to be ashamed, but to be wise in her choices. Big difference.

And you never asked the question I asked. Who is the responsible party for the consequences of the poor choice made by a minor child?

Oh I don’t. I just wanted you to be sure and not think most people failed to teach their child.

This subject is like any other…..there is no single “right” answer. People who teach their child to abstain, as my wife and I do, believe it is best for her and her development to becoming an adult. Once she is an adult then the choices are hers to make. I base my beliefs on what is in the best interest of my child and I certainly know that her becoming pregnant and having a child when she is a child is NOT ever going to be a wise choice. You may choose to teach your child differently and supply him/her with knowledge and condoms, but you’re still going to be worrying he/she will make a wrong choice and potentially have consequences of their actions that he/she is unable to handle the responsibility of.

What about Palin’s daughter? She fully explained that her parents explained things her, but that she wished she’d have waited, and now she advocates and preaches abstinence. So not sure what your point is.

I think it’s a fair question to ask, is homosexuality normal and acceptable? Add to that, promiscuous sex. I do not advocate any laws or regulations on what is shown on TV, but there are many things on that I do not think appropriate for my kids to watch. ABC Family is terrible about running promo’s on upcoming shows that feature teen sex issues during the early times when younger children are watching. I think it is deliberate, to make then curious and draw them into their mass media mindset. They want (and their advertisers) for kids to want to imitate what they see on their shows. They want them to expect to have everything from I-pods to the latest shoes, etc.. And they will show them their world where it’s cool and acceptable to be openly gay or to have a baby at 16. On TV, you can have a child when you are a child, and everything works out fine. In the real world, 80% of our prison population comes from a home with a single mother.

Manipulating the minds of the young (and old) is not new. The Romans did it, as well as every religion. In America, our school system started with christian influences in most schools, but the main focus was education, the three R’s, Latin, etc.. The more the fed. gov. got involved, the more it morphed the present monstrosity, more concerned with social values than knowledge. And the entitlement society is very happy with making the schools responsible for raising their child, not just educating them.

Okay, lets try this from another angle. Why is it a good thing? What good things does it bring to society? In what way is it helpful to children?

Well it’s a good thing because it’s fun and feels good. It’s a good thing because it doesn’t encourage boys to lie and manipulate women for sex. It’s a good thing because sex is a great stress reliever. It’s a good thing because we aren’t fighting our own nature (our nature is akin to chimps which spend all day having “creative” sex). It’s a good thing because the money spent on condoms alone could stimulate our economy (pun intended). It’s a good thing because more sex means more experience means better sex (Jefferson advocated having sex with old women because they were more experienced). Open marriages means a lower divorce rate (the divorce rate among swingers is around 2% by some estimates compared with 50% for the rest of us). Plural marriages means more economy of scale (Costco shopping), division of labor, and greater parenting resources. Open acceptance of homosexuality means less bullying (think Matthew Shepard) and fewer suicides. More sex means more exercise which means less obesity (seriously, this could be huge in America.. F*** Your Way to Fitness™.. I am totally trademarking that).

She knows what I think. And she can’t really win an argument about it because she, like you, have no logic to support your opinion better than “because.”

But she doesn’t feel comfortable with a situation where I go elsewhere for meaningless sex with young beautiful women who don’t mean anything to me. So, because I love her and she has made it a choice between her or a freer life-style, I chose her. Therefore I do not involve myself in this. And, even though I have no moral objection to the behavior itself, I do have an objection to being dishonest or deceitful toward my wife, so I am a one-woman man until death do us part. And I consider that a good deal, because she is a great wife.

Hi Matt-you like to read-so maybe this being really longgg-won’t bother you. I am curious what you will think about the arguments. Try not to get deterred from the points made simply because there are a couple references to religion.

I found the part about-how many things that would usually be condemned-being excused by relativist only when they involve sex-an interesting observation.

My understanding is that moral relativism suggests that there is no objective right or wrong. I disagree. I think there are legitimate rights and wrongs, and a hazy area between them that has yet to be sorted out.

I think you’re confusing my rejection of your moral structure with a believe that there is NO correct moral structure.

Yes sir, you know me better than this. Looking at those words on their own I can see where its misunderstood. The discussion was going on up top too and by the time I wrote these words I’m thinking “dude, you’re never getting any more!” 🙂 So there is no reward to it. 🙂

Since you mention meaningless..that’s kind of how I see Matt’s position..he has it pinned down to a mechanical function which to me is meaningless to the couple but satisfies Matt . Which is why if I was his wife I’d feel like a piece (of shit)!

Yep-I suspect you can convince people better than I can how wrong you are Hee HEE-so go ahead 🙂 I’ll chime in at some point-Gotta go for a little while-be back later to respond to your reason with some common sense. 🙂

Researching my genealogy I was always amazed that after documenting over 1000 ancestors (ggggg… grandparents) I found they all stuck together until death did they part. One exception I found strong circumstantial evidence of a seperation. Now thanks to you Mathius I know how they did it! They must have all been of the 2% divorce rate Puritan swingers!

Yes, even in the 1800s I noticed my ancestors living next door to each other as children. Gotta grab what you can reach, i guess! Really I found much the same all the way back into the 1600s. Neighbors marrying neighbors.

One generation ago, you had two ancestors (your mother and father).
Two generations ago, you had four ancestors (maternal grandmother/grandfather, paternal grandmother/grandfather).
Three generations ago, you had 8 ancestors (two for each of your grandparents).
Four generations ago, you had 16 ancestors (four for each of your grandparents).
Five generations ago, you had 32 ancestors (two for each of your grandparents’ grandparents).
Six generations ago, you had 62 ancestors (four for each of your grandparents’ grandparents).
…
…
…
Thirty generations ago, you had 1,073,741,824 ancestors. Averaging 25 years per generation, the year was roughly 1261. There were not 1 billion people on Earth. Many of your ancestors had to have held more than one of those billion+ positions in your family tree.

Ergo, not only were your ancestors swingers, but they were also inbreeding.

“Ergo, not only were your ancestors swingers, but they were also inbreeding”
Correct on the inbreeding.
I found few 1600s ancestors of mine who were my ancestors 4 times or more, and quite a few 2 or more times. Going back before the 1600s I am sure it was much more than that. One ancestor 1600s had royal blood with mutiple descents from multiple kings of europe multiple times each.

Obama’s #’s keep going up … because of the clown act staring this joker Cain. We’re going to be doomed to 4 more years of an absolute incompetent because the best the right can do are bigger incompetents … just what us commies are hoping for …. it’ll keep getting worse and worse and then bada-boom, bada-bing, both parties are toast.

The Republicans do not know how to fight, Charlie. They never have. I do not pay any attention to these polls at all but what saddens me is that our politics are determined by who has the least “dirt”. I give the msm and the Dems credit for learning from the military how to use misdirection. Obama’s policies are in the garbage and the Repubs are fighting over a couple of Cain comments that were made twenty years ago? and every single man that is walking on this earth is guilty of sexual harassment given the definitions of today. You cannot tell a woman she looks good without being guilty of sexual harassment. If a man says….hey, you look hot….he is labeled a masher. Even if you open a car door anymore, you are guilty of harassment. But the whole thing is, it is a misdirection and sleazy at best. Women, for decades now, have been using the system to collect nuisance money and until one comes forward and says “he put his hand here….uninvited….” then it carries no legitimacy. But, misdirection it is.

Gingrich is the only contender that has kept the message on target and the rest of the stupid Repubs are fighting each other…however…as soon as one is picked, I hope the message gets centered on what is going on. Obama is a dictator. He is by passing Congress and the idiots are letting him. The Republicans have no leadership and the Dems know this. I pay no significance to generic polling….you control that by whom you poll…..But you are correct in that Rome is burning.

Here’s the thing, Colonel. Forget the sexual harrassment. It’s his never-ending “mispoken”, changes in what he remembers—the coverup that makes him look so damn foolish. And it’s not just sexual harrassment. Abortion (talk about flip flopping/mispeaking) … China and nukes … uz-beki-beki-beki stan … the guy is a joke. And the GOP will NEVER let him head the ticket. I doubt they’ll let him anywhere near the VP end of the ticket. I have no idea what they intend to do with Romney, but right now they’re in deep shit (and deservedly so).

Hell, I can’t stand Obama and if my choice was Cain or Obama and I had to vote for one or the other, there’s no way I’d go near Cain (and Obama is a proven loser). Not to worry, my vote will go in the toilet with either Nader, the socialists or communists … but like that general who spoke his mind rather than eat shit, I’ll vote for who I want rather than the lesser of two evils.

The tea party/conservative movement clinging to Cain is like holding onto an anchor in the middle of the atlantic. They’re going down.

Maybe so..but I was answering why Obamas numbers go up…..but….I also do not pay attention to so called “generic polls”….. I do not like either of the Republican Candidates. It is clear to me that both parties are run by the established few…….I get that…>RHINOS……..but…there is no alternative…either do not vote or vote for another system….unlike you, I do not want a socialist nor communist regime and life style. I like my life style….I do not want to live in austerity. I do not want a state telling me what to eat and when to eat it. I do not want anyone regulating my music nor the clothes that I wear. If I am smart enough to make more money and hire people, I want to do that….If I want to live on the street I want to do that.

These are interesting times….reminds me of the 60’s which were not good, in my opinion.

KATHLEEN WILLEY: You know, it’s infuriating is all that I can say about watching what’s going on because everything is vague and innocuous, and we don’t have any names, and we don’t have any dates, and we don’t have any, you know, we don’t have any people. We have spokesman for the people, you know, the women. And, you know, it’s clearly a double standard. And I, hopefully, you know, the American people are starting to see through this is all I can say, because, you know, they just, they have just blown this thing out of, out of proportion.

I saw something interesting last night, something Brent Bozell was talking about. What happened to me and us, you know, as compared to Cain. When my first story, my story came out, I had three segments on network news. Paula had one. Gennifer I think had one or two. I mean, you know, there have been stories about Cain, they’re up to like 50 or 60 things on network TV, you know, as compared to with information, because it’s a whole less clear in this thing with Cain.

Willey was referring to a NewsBusters report finding the broadcast network news outlets did a total of fifty segments about Politico’s allegations in the first three days after the story broke. By contrast:

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: There were three reports after you went public in ’97, there were three brief reports for Juanita Broaddrick back in ’99, and when Paula Jones went public in February of ’94, only ABC gave her sixteen seconds. The other networks did nothing until Bill Clinton got a defense attorney in May of that year.

WILLEY: Exactly. Exactly.

MALZBERG: Now do you attribute this, this double standard as you call it to Democrat-Republican, or is there any racial overtones in your view here with Cain?

WILLEY: I don’t think so much racial. It’s that, it’s just conservative versus liberal and progressives, you know? It’s two different agendas, and unfortunately for us in this country, you know, we’ve got biased press, biased networks, biased anchors, and, you know, they do, they do what they can do. I mean, they don’t have any restraints on them. It’s a real lesson, you know, it really is because I was, you know, I always felt when I was a kid that Walter Cronkite was telling the truth. I mean, really. And we’ve found out that it’s never been, it’s never been that way.

MALZBERG: Kathleen, what about the hypocrisy of the, of the women’s groups as well?

WILLEY: Oh, don’t even get me started. Really, I know. Well, there again, they didn’t come to my rescue. I, I cannot tell you how many phone calls I made to Patricia Ireland at NOW. And, and, you know, just pleas, pleas for help. Just anything. They, they never called me back. They never called me, none of them. And, they’re, when they were asked, you know, about me after all this happened, the responses were so tepid. You know, it was like, “Well, if it did happen, we had something real serious to deal with here.” And then who was it, the one that said, you know, Betty Friedan or somebody, just made a horrible, crude remark, you know, about what just happened, you know, as long as he, as long as Clinton keeps, keeps, you know, he’s not against abortion…

MALZBERG: Abortion, yeah, then he’s okay by them. Yeah, I remember that. Let me ask you: what do you think of this woman in particular – we don’t know her name – trying, trying to get the story out against Cain while not wanting to speak, not wanting to be identified, wanting to hide behind her lawyer, all this after signing an agreement and getting money? What do you think of her?

WILLEY: Why is, why is anybody giving her any credibility at all? That’s my point. Why, you know, why are we even entertaining, you know, any of this from a person with no name and no face and a spokesperson who isn’t really clear on anything either? That’s the point. And these people are getting as much airtime as they want.

Look at the attacks on Palin-most of what was said was just vicious attacks based on her daughter getting pregnant-they didn’t care that they were using a 17 year old to attack her-most of the rest was based on anonymous reporting.

Then lets look at the occupy groups chosen form of protest-Occupying- which I find almost funny since they scream so loudly about how bad the US is to OCCUPY other countries. Anyway-they actually go into business’s and try to disrupt and block doorways causing people to get hurt and scream and holler and invade people’s space-but the anti-abortion group-they can’t even stand on the sidewalk and talk to people-without this same crowd passing special laws and screaming about how wrong it is.

I understand the desire to have a tit for tat-when we judge the different groups-but please-look at this honestly and tell me that it is an equal comparison. First of all, I have posted a lot about the form the protests are taking-I haven’t mentioned one word that I am aware of that pointed out individual nut cases on the left who have acted crazy. I am talking about the form of protest that they are using and promoting and is being cheered and supported by a good portion of the left. And I have no problem with protests on either side as long as they don’t actually get right in someones face and scream or invade their private property -as the chosen form of protest.

This form of protest seems to be the NORM for the left-the NORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that many on the left support the protest (in general) but disapprove of certain elements and activities. You suggest that “a good portion of the left” are supportive of the extremer elements in the protest, and I do not believe you have evidence to support that.

You then paint the whole of the movement with the brush of the few outliers. I again point out that they are a small portion and are not indicative of the whole. You ignore the crazies/extremists who protest at abortion clinics because they are individuals (and rightfully so), but then you look at the crazies/extremists who protest at wall street and assert that they are representative of the entirety of the form of protest. This is simply not fair on your part.

Pick an objective standard for measuring both groups and apply it equally – I think you will find they are roughly equivalent in all ways (except, of course, for their message) – and the fact that no OWS member has executed a hedge fund manager after being told by Glen Beck that he is evil.

One idiot takes a dump on a police car – the whole movement is suddenly a bunch of idiots who disrespect the police. One idiot throws a Molotov cocktail into an abortion clinic, and for some reason you are allowed to disown him and his actions. Why do you get to do this, but they aren’t?

I am picking an objective measure-the acceptance of the FORM of protest-by a huge number of the left.

OCCUPY Wall Street- The name -the message is OCCUPY. I have not called all the people crazy-I am pointing out that they are supporting the FORM- If they support this Form of protest-They are complete hypocrites. You can’t support this in “general” -you can’t claim disagreement on some of the activities-The main activity-is the FORM-the other activities are the consequences.

One other thing-National Strike Day-a huge group of people following behind a huge sign-that said something like DEATH to CAPITALISM- I can’t stand with that either. And if one supports this group and the form of protest, which seems to be everybody who has some thing to bitch about come on down-stand with us-Can’t say they don’t stand with them and the friggin sign they are following and supporting as a part of this protest.

One other point, I find I must make. Accepting this form of protest-the right to OCCUPY-says a lot. It isn’t-I want to protest Wall Street-It is saying loud and clear-I don’t believe in individual rights-I believe as a part of the whole I can occupy and step on the rights of the individual.

Off topic…..but….I told ya so…..”The U.N. atomic agency plans to reveal intelligence next week suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead and other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms, diplomats told The Associated Press on Friday.

Other new confidential information the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to share with its 35 board members will include satellite imagery of what the IAEA believes is a large steel container used for nuclear arms-related high explosives tests, the diplomats said.”

@ Charlie….kinda goes to what I was saying on the previous blog. Here is an example of a General saying what was on his mind and the result.

“A top U.S. general in Afghanistan was fired Friday for making disparaging remarks about Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government.

Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, made the remarks in an interview with Politico that was published Thursday. Fuller told Politico that major players in the Afghan government are “isolated from reality.” Fuller reacted angrily to claims from Karzai that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if it were to go to war with the United States.

Fuller called Karzai’s statements “erratic,” adding, “Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You’ve got to be kidding me … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care’?”

But here is why we (letbards) will eventually win … yous have Ayn Rand … we have John Steinbeck:

This is the beginning—from “I” to “we”. If you who own the things people must have could understand this, you might preserve yourself. If you could separate causes from results, if you could know that Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin were results, not causes, you might survive. But that you cannot know. For the quality of owning freezes you forever into “I”, and cuts you off forever from the “we”. (Grapes of Wrath)

Wolves and Cattle. US Fish and Wildlife Service + Environmental Groups = Congress Acts to override.

Please note that Congress had to step in and overturn the Courts in order to resolve this issue. The bright spot is that SOME, not all, of the groups now recognize that there is a limit to what they can cram down our throats.

I have maintained for some time that our “National Infrastructure Crisis” is just another hoax. There may be problems in specific areas but it is not a NATIONAL problem. In fact, most of the examples of “crumbling” are usually items falling under STATE jurisdiction and not part of the Federal System.

Not that I’m proud of this but I think they used all, exaggerating but alot for sure, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money to rebuild SE Michigan roads and bridges. I think every bridge between my home and my lake has been rebuilt, as well as 30 miles of both directions of the interstate between here and there, as well as our main intersection in town, as well as a 2 mile stretch that may get 50 cars per day on it (this one surely seems like a city road project to me). They tore down 2 perfectly good rest areas and replaced them, and now I see 2 perfectly good weigh stations being torn down and replaced, concrete and all. This is just where I travel most, but the ARRA signs are all over around here. Maybe they have a plan to raise Detroit from the rubble.

Hi Matt-you like to read-so maybe this being really longgg-won’t bother you. I am curious what you will think about the arguments. Try not to get deterred from the points made simply because there are a couple references to religion.

I found the part about-how many things that would usually be condemned-being excused by relativist only when they involve sex-an interesting observation.

Hey SUFA…..D13 will be intermittent for a little while. Last week we picked up a Hezbollah operative on the border (yes, it was my group that found him) and from the intel we have learned, there are Hezbollah training camps in Mexico (we know the state) that are training Hezbollah Muslims how to be and look Hispanic and how to cross our southern border into the United States and how to use the system to get on our welfare programs. They are learning how to infiltrate the illegal community and secure construction and landscaping jobs through Federal programs on Federal projects to include infiltrating various military bases in the United States in landscaping and cleaning jobs.

We will be in training classes on how to spot and find these types of “illegals” that are entering our country through Mexico. Mexico denies that there are training camps and refuses to let us intervene in any way to prove where they exist, They are also working in concert with the Sinaloa Cartel and we have the documents to prove this and have tried. The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to this because they do not want it considered a National Security risk at election time and have sealed and classified all the Bush Administration documents to prevent any leaks where Bush II had set up surveillance on this type of activity and funded it. Funding has been eliminated by Homeland Security and the threat, according to them, does not exist.

Those of you who have been to Mexico before on the border, invite you to take a tour of the same areas today. Anyway, will be in an out….and not eating burgers.

Well Matt…..come to the border area and look around….I do not know how to confirm for you the pick up we had last week….it is not reported by the msm and it is not classified.The training classes that I will be going through beginning tomorrow are for real…..I do not know how to confirm those with you other than I am going through them, They are not seminars open to the public.

It is no secret about the Sinaloa Cartel and HEzbollah…that has been reported on before concerning gun running.

Sorry, I have no references to report to you other than what I am beginning to undergo…..believe or not..up to you, my friend.

There is an interview out there somewhere under the tag of National Security and Border….with an Arizona Sheriff that makes reference to Sinaloa and Hezbollah and their training to look Hispanic…..I cannot find it….but the sheriff interviewed is not the one that has always been in the news. You might try that…

Ask DPM…..when he is not swilling in grog…he is at Laguna Madre making pre invasion plans.

More likely to be D13 or some unknown rancher. But then, I think it more likely they will enter in California or New Mexico. In the Clancy novel, four teams of four attack malls with machine guns, looking for a high body count. Do you feel safe when you see the mall cops patrol in their professional uniforms, armed with the latest two-way radio’s? Some even have mace!

Apparently University of Texas (why is it always Texas?) has come up with some means of boosting immune systems to create a resistance to ALL strains of flu. (http:// dfw. cbslocal. com /2011/11/04/north-texas-researchers-creating-ultimate-flu-shot/ (spaces added to avoid the moderator approval queue))

I read this, then thought for a second and realized that it will buy us a year or two of flu-free lives before the virus mutates. And then it will be powerful enough to overcome our suped-up immune systems. Which means that everyone without suped-up immune systems is screwed. Then balance will be restored between super-immune and super-virus, except for the billions who die.

I know this is dangerous, but I’ll wade into the sex discussion. I’m sure I won’t change minds (I seldom see anyone change their opinion), but let me tell you what I think.

Matt

I don’t see how/why this is inherently negative. Some (like me) might argue that we Americans are far too Puritanical when it comes to things like sex.

I understand why you would do so, but you completely discount any religious reasons. You may see this as silly, but for many people, this is all the reason they need and it is certainly not irrational. Read 1 Corinthians 6: 12-20 (for example).

Similarly, many people oppose homosexuality because it is described in the Bible as a sin and “an abomination,” that is, against the nature of a human being (as intended by God). Be careful how easily you discount these reasons, because they are very meaningful to a lot of people.

Well it’s a good thing because it’s fun and feels good.

For some people bullying or picking on someone is fun and feels good, doesn’t make it right.

I’m not going to spend the time to go through each of your statements, but I could make similar analyses. For example, a lower divorce rate among swingers tells me nothing, because that group has self selected to remove the primary reason for divorce and does not have the (puritanical) morality that many others do. One does not have to accept homosexuality as moral without removing bullying and suicides. Arguments like your make me a little upset. My morality declares homosexuality is a sin, but it also declares that abuse is as well. Why do I need to abandon my moral code because others use it as an excuse to break the very same morality?!?

Practical reasons why sex should be kept within monogamous marriages (i’m excluding all forms of fornication and adultery here):
Fewer STDs (say bye-bye to the AIDS epidemic). Fewer children born to single parents. Fewer divorces from unfaithful spouses. Less probable to be abused by sexual partners (if you marry someone who is abusing you, you need help). No hurt feelings by poor performance (what do you have with which to compare). More sex within marriage (because your libido will drive you to it eventually), hence better relationships. I’m sure we could come up with more here, but this list is sufficient.

And the primary reason for me is that sex is THE most personal and intimate thing you can do with another person. You bear a piece of your soul to that person. The Bible says of marriage that the two shall become one, and I believe this is done through sex. Sex is not a bad thing, it is a gift from God, but it can absolutely be used in a bad way. No one should be ashamed of sex or think it a dirty word. It is the perversion of that act that brings shame. To share such an experience with one person alone does wonders for a relationship. It is a bonding experience like no other, one that only you two share. I would not trade a few minutes of meaningless pleasure for a lifetime of an incredible relationship with one that I truly love.

Bible / Corinthians I agree that many people are religiously inspired to take a puritanical view of sex. I may disagree with their premise but do not deny them their right to believe as they wish. HOWEVER, societal norms are shifting away from this, and to fight against it on religious grounds is untenable. Simply because your religion tells you something does not mean you should push against others who do not share that view. Further, and more to the point, moving away from the society you envisage as morally superior by way of adherence to Christian principles in not inherently a bad thing objectively. Christian principles tell us many things that we ignore, including many of the really crazy things in the old testament. But, for example, moving away from Blue Laws does not mean that society is degrading – it just means it’s changing. To suggest moral decay in an objective sense requires more support than “it’s less Christian” – especially to those of us who are not Christian.

For some people bullying or picking on someone is fun and feels good, doesn’t make it right. This is true, but bullying is not a consentual activity. If I agree to be bullied, for some strange reason, there would be nothing wrong with someone stuffing me in a locker. This is something of a straw man argument as I have never suggested that the sexual equivalent of bullying (coerced sex) is even remotely acceptable.

I would not trade a few minutes of meaningless pleasure for a lifetime of an incredible relationship with one that I truly love. Why trade? I had plenty of meaningless minutes hours of pleasure and now I have an incredible relationship with the one I love. Why does this have to be an either/or? There is nothing that prevents this from being an AND.

Though romantic love is different than say familial love, I would make the comparison that you can love multiple children without feeling anything less for one just because you also love another, so why is it that a romantic interest in one partner means less if you have a romantic interest in another? Is it somehow so weak and frail? Why?

Fewer STDs (say bye-bye to the AIDS epidemic). I have consistently stated that proper protection is a must. In none of those meaningless experiences did I ever fail to utilize appropriate precautions. I think sky diving is fun – but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to jump out of a plain without a spare chute. You could say goodbye to the AIDS epidemic by using proper precaution – yes, there would still be the occasional inadvertent infection, but the incidence would be so low as to be negligible. Further, part of the reason for the wide spread, especially early on, was the stigmatism of having a “primarily gay” disease, which prevented (and still prevents) many people from getting tested.

I’ll tell you a story: I had the flu one time, then gave blood a week or so later. Apparently, this depressed my T-cell count. And, apparently, the quick check for AIDS infection done by the Red Cross is to check the T-cell count. Suffice it to say I got the scariest letter of my life. The next day I got myself tested and then spent a week waiting for results – this was the single more terrifying week of my life. I could have thrown the letter out and pretended that nothing was wrong. And I certainly hated to explain to my parents why I needed to see a doctor to get tested for this. Would it have been so hard if there weren’t a stigma attached? How many people face a similar situation and take the coward’s way out because they don’t want to admit they have an STD? I could argue that taking the shame out sex would free people up to be more honest and upfront about their health issues which, more than anything else, would help prevent their spread.

Fewer children born to single parents. Again, protection is required. Condoms are very effective. Add to that birth control, and you have staggeringly low rates of pregnancy. But buying condoms is embarassing in our society. Asking for the pill is dicey if you are a young woman and need your parents’ help to get it. But take the shame/stigmas/embarrassment out of sex, treat something natural in a neutral way, and we can be far safer about it.

Fewer divorces from unfaithful spouses. What? How did you get this? Didn’t we just establish that couples who do not require sexual fidelity have a lower divorce rate? I would argue that the temptation to get some variety is one of the primary drivers of being unfaithful. It’s not the extra-marital sexual activities which are the problem, it’s the lying/cheating aspect. I think people are pushed by their biology to stray. Many of us are strong enough to resist. But we’re fighting our impulses in an unnatural way based on a unsupported premise.

Less probable to be abused by sexual partners (if you marry someone who is abusing you, you need help). What? Where is this coming from? You can only be abused by a sexual partner if you are having sex – true. But you can just as easily be abused by a partner with whom you are not having sex. I might even suggest that sexual frustrate partners (pre-marriage) would be more prone to violence.

No hurt feelings by poor performance (what do you have with which to compare). No spice of having new partners. Also, if your husband/wife is fat, you will never get to have an physically attractive partner again for the rest of your life. Also, if your wife is old, you will never get to have a young partner again for the rest of your life.

More sex within marriage (because your libido will drive you to it eventually), hence better relationships. Also, your wife can use sex as leverage to get you to do household chores, after all, you’ve given her an artificial monopoly on something your genes are screaming at you to do. And we all know they are more patient than men and tend to get “headaches” when you forget to take out the garbage.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, Matt. I knew it would happen, so I’m not really surprised.

In terms of the moral decay of society. What I find the most disturbing is not immorality, that’s just a fact of life. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” No one can be completely moral! The disturbing thing for me is AMORALITY. When people say, I decide that this is not wrong.

You reference some “really crazy things in the old testament.” Let me point out that there are 3 different sets of law in the OT. These are Civic, Ritual, and Moral. The civic and ritual laws are obsolete (in fact made obsolete by Jesus Christ). The moral laws are not. It is silly to compare a moral law from the OT with a civic law. The standing of one does not affect the standing of another.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

As for amorality, there was a time when it was considered moral to do all kinds of things. In fact, in ye olden tymes, it was a considered immoral for a black man to marry a white woman. Yes, with time, we have decided that this is not immoral. Hurray for progress.

So the removal of something from the “immoral” category is not in-and-of-itself a bad thing. It is only when something has a reason to be in the immoral category and it is removed when there is a problem.

You have not shown to me that there is a reason why pre- and extra-marital sex should be immoral. At least not to my satisfaction. So I do not see why it is a bad thing that it is removed from this categorization.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled the law, yes? He brought about a major change. No longer is a priest (tribe of Aaron) needed to intercede on behalf of humans to God. Now Jesus does that for us. Ritual law = unnecessary.

This is a major point for me. I believe many Christians get this terribly wrong. One of the purposes of the law is to show us just how miserably lost we would be without the grace of God through Jesus Christ. We cannot uphold the law, therefore we cannot save ourselves by being good. “For man it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” This doesn’t mean we are free to do as we wish, just that we are assured of God’s forgiveness because of Jesus when we repent. Therefore, the moral law is still necessary, it shows us what we have done wrong and brings our hearts to a state such that we realize our need for forgiveness.

So the removal of something from the “immoral” category is not in-and-of-itself a bad thing. It is only when something has a reason to be in the immoral category and it is removed when there is a problem.

I agree. I don’t think mixed marriages are bad, therefore I am not disturbed by that change. I do think extra-marital sex is bad, therefore I am disturbed by that change. The fact that you don’t accept my reasoning really doesn’t surprise me. The fact that this disturbs me shouldn’t surprise you. I see a moral decay in society because it is moving away from what I believe is the source of true morality. You don’t because you have a different moral code. Hence, I said we should just agree to disagree…

You reference some “really crazy things in the old testament.” Let me point out that there are 3 different sets of law in the OT. These are Civic, Ritual, and Moral. The civic and ritual laws are obsolete (in fact made obsolete by Jesus Christ). The moral laws are not.

Oh? Where do you think he made such a distinction?

He was very clear – there is but one Law
Matthew 7:12
” So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. “

Is it moral degradation that society has become more tolerant/accepting and participating in pre- and extra-marital sex (note, I am talking about extra marital sex where the other spouse consents, so not cheating). And, again, I clarify that I am asking here about concentual sex only between concentual partners/groups.

And, aside from your personal preferences and beliefs re the morality of such, do you believe that a romantic relationship necessarily requires sexual exclusivity, or that it is possible to separate the physical and emotional aspects.

Also, any other thoughts you’d happen to feel like sharing on the subject would be welcome.

Big difference in arguing that someone should have the freedom to be immoral and claiming what they are doing isn’t immoral. Flag obviously doesn’t believe there should be laws just shunning. I believe there are some laws that are necessary to promote a civilized society. Your beliefs are sometimes so extreme 🙂 I have to wonder along with Kathy’s kids if you are sometimes just messing with us. 🙂 🙂

Something I was thinking about the other night-you keep saying we can’t prove that promiscuity is immoral-and it lead to to start thinking about how I would prove that Murder was immoral. Care to take a crack at it?

I have followed some paths to their logical ends. Sometimes that seems crazy to everyone else.

Other paths I’m just starting out on. We’ll have to see where they lead. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t try, or worse, if I rejected the conclusions I reached simply because I didn’t like the answers.

With regards to flag, I’m asking his general thoughts – if there is something immoral in this – not if there should be laws or if people should be shunned. Just, simply, is it intrinsically necessary that a spousal pair-bond be 1:1 with sexual exclusivity where any deviation from that is deemed to be moral decay. I think he, though he may not personally engage in such actions, will probably share my opinion that you cannot arrive at that conclusion from any logical framework other than “because I said so” or “because that’s how it is” – and I somehow don’t think that will cut muster with our resident pirate.

P1: You have no right to inflict violence on the non-violent.
P2: You have no right to inflict more violence than absolutely necessary.
P3: Murder is extreme violence outside of the accepted cause of self-defense (and a few other caveats).

C: Ergo, the act of murder must necessarily involve either premise 1 or 2. Therefore, you are acting on me in a way in which you have no right. You are violating my rights. Therefore your action is murder.

I think you miss the point-Why can’t I use violence? It ends a life-but why can’t I end a life. Why are people important? Is it based on the consequences of the action. The emotional impact to the living. What? Are there any moral absolutes? And how do we define them. And what makes them absolutes?

Is it moral degradation that society has become more tolerant/accepting and participating in pre- and extra-marital sex (note, I am talking about extra marital sex where the other spouse consents, so not cheating). And, again, I clarify that I am asking here about concentual sex only between concentual partners/groups.

No, not one bit.

“I would rather be inconvenienced by attending too much freedom, then the tyranny of too little of it.”

Live and let live.
They are not bothering me – so let them be.

And, aside from your personal preferences and beliefs re the morality of such, do you believe that a romantic relationship necessarily requires sexual exclusivity

No.

There is no fundamental reason to why this would be so.

However, there are reasons to why it became so as a moral norm.

Historically, the protection of the offspring is very difficult for one person – thus, two was the minimum and an extended family optimum.

As humans have become more and more capable in supporting our existence against nature’s deadly hand, the capability of the individual to guard our infants is getting better and better, too.

The survival of the species -at least in this regard- is assured for now. The moral norm remains however – but its need no longer does. We will continue to see the relaxation of norms in this matter.

And I wonder what we will be left with? I find you contradictory-you say we should shun to stop our society from becoming uncivilized-you preach on the importance of family-yet you sit here and proclaim that sexual exclusivity is unimportant to the family structure because now one can take care of the children as well as two. Does this mean that you believe the family structure will be destroyed if this insanity is followed by the many, because that two to one comment seems to support that conclusion- but it just doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t limit your freedom-even if only in attitude.

I find you contradictory-you say we should shun to stop our society from becoming uncivilized

That is correct.

When I say “Let them be”, that is exactly what I mean to the fullest extent of your understanding.

I chose to do nothing for them or against them.

-you preach on the importance of family-

That’s right – it is the cornerstone of civilization.

yet you sit here and proclaim that sexual exclusivity is unimportant to the family structure

To be clear – it is far less important and insignificant to justify a means to correct it with that means -in its consequence- threatens to destroy society writ large.

The cure is far, far, far worse than the disease.

The disease is inconvenient – the cure is fatal.

Does this mean that you believe the family structure will be destroyed

Not even a little bit.

Family is the nucleus of society.
Any individual and society that drifts from that nucleus becomes disorientated and confused.
Confused individuals and society starts to stumble and regress.
Regression in society re-focuses society and the individual upon its nucleus.
Families re-emerge and stabilize society.

It is a natural, powerful, feedback loop that can only be disturbed by VIOLENCE.

Maybe you should go back and reread the question-you weren’t asked if a law should be passed or even if people should be shunned-you weren’t even asked if people would overcome the craziness-you were asked is it a “moral degradation of society”. A simple yes or no -will do -unless it’s a no-then explain not how we will overcome it- but why it isn’t a moral degradation-if it will hurt the corner stone of society.

A: Societies which approve of Premise 1 are immoral.
B: Because they’re immoral, per Premise 2, they collapse.

Conclusion: Ergo, if we condone this, it will destroy us.

——-

But your premise is flawed. You, again, take for granted that pre/extra martial sex is inherently immoral. Yet you cannot seem to prove this. You keep circling around the periphery claiming “but- but- but-,” but you never have presented a single concrete argument more sound than “Because.” But it could spread disease, but it could result in a pregnancy, but people might agree to behavior they don’t know if they can handle? What kinds of arguments are those? Something is immoral because something else might happen between two consenting adults?

History lesson-can wait-Yes or No . Whether you believe immorality is a big contributing factor to societal collapse or not-even if you believe the degradation is temporary-and with societies temporary can be along time -it doesn’t change whether or not the acceptance of such is a degradation of society. Answer the question.

Finally a YES-so now- I guess we are left with-is doing something that, if implemented would risk the continuation of our society is immoral or not. I think it fits the definition of immoral pretty good. I find it rather confusing -that anything which effects our freedom is wrong or immoral-based on it destroying the foundations of civilization-but that which also can destroy the foundations of civilization isn’t.

Matt, there have been many reasons posted on how this hurts society by hurting the individual-by hurting the family-by creating single family units-psychological and statistical information on the effect of divorce and single family units on children-by less money to support children because there is only one instead of two-by taking away the feeling of responsibility for children, hell the woman should have had an abortion-I don’t get to decide if she has the baby, so if she chooses to do so,it’s her responsibility to raise it-by killing the unborn so people can enjoy sex without taking responsibility for the possible consequences -you simply don’t accept them.

I don’t think- I am heading down hill at all-I am simply talking about one part of the whole. It is wrong to encourage the young to be sexually promiscuous-it causes them to continue this mind set into adulthood-which causes many, many problems-each generation is going to do one of two things-learn from the reality of this idea-not to follow it-or follow it to our eventual destruction.

Lets face it-if we turn into the emotionless robots Matt believes we are-you would be hard pressed to convince be that murder was still immoral.

. It is wrong to encourage the young to be sexually promiscuous-it causes them to continue this mind set into adulthood

No it doesn’t!!!

I don’t know about you, but I don’t see many middle aged people bed-hopping!!

-which causes many, many problems

Sure does, but that’s life – one big, recurring, problem.

The natural order of things – if it gets out of hand, parents become more and more entangled (caring for babies of teenagers falls on the grandparents) and parents finally get fed up, and they lay down the rules to their own kids …YOU, V.H. need NOT do a damn thing…. and if you don’t need to do a thing, neither does society.

Oh, by the way-I thought Rome was destroyed by all things immoral, including sexual immorality. I am not saying the collapse is caused by sexual immorality alone-I am saying once immorality is accepted in one area -it grows and infects all areas of society.

One other thing-there are moral absolutes-they are the standards by which we judge what is Right and Wrong. Freedom is a moral absolute-I may have a hard time defining them-but they exist. Whether you believe they come from God or from nature-they exist.

One other thing-there are moral absolutes-they are the standards by which we judge what is Right and Wrong. Freedom is a moral absolute-I may have a hard time defining them-but they exist. Whether you believe they come from God or from nature-they exist.

No, I do not believe freedom is a moral.

Freedom is NOT measurable nor can it be judged – it cannot be judged by “right” or “wrong” – it merely exists or it does not exist.

For men to act in their own interests, men must be free to act.
Freedom is not judged, the action is judged.

Really-I would say things grow out of hand because the underlying cause is immoral.

As far as bed hopping-I see a lot of divorced old people trying 🙂 I see the young believing that sex is a necessary part of dating-but it may take a few more generations before we see the true effect of all the sexual freedom BS has on society. We already, see abortion, single family households, a growing disrespect for woman and the effects on our young of not having a father in the house. But who knows maybe common sense will win out-but common sense winning out only shows the stupidity and immorality of the whole idea.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Jesus fulfilled the law, yes? He brought about a major change. No longer is a priest (tribe of Aaron) needed to intercede on behalf of humans to God. Now Jesus does that for us. Ritual law = unnecessary.

I ran Mathius’ response by my two adult kids, one married, one single and didn’t tell them any background info, his age, gender or married status. My daughter was quite repulsed and used the term sleezy and cheap. My son thought it was just a joke that no one can really feel that way. I was very encouraged!

We then talked about it with background provided and the words “respect” and “values” were used by each of them. Yeah Kathy’s kids! Guess they are just puritans too who only do it in the dark, under the covers in the missionary position! Hahaha!

Your damn straight they learned about values and respect. In a lot of ways, including their own bodies and that of their partners. But they are also of your generation and so influenced by the same things as you.

I’m saying they learned FROM YOU, so it’s not surprising that their views mirror yours.

They may be in the same generation as me, but they are not me. Nor have they had my experiences. Nor have they had my education (they had their own, which was different). Nor have they seen what I have seen. Nor have they done what I have done.

But children are molded by their parents. They can overcome some of this, but you have an immense affect on who they become as adults. It is highly likely that they will share your views.

To use your children as a survey sample to prove me wrong is just illogical – it’d be like surveying your church group to figure out what religion is correct.

I can’t imagine loving someone and finding out that they value me so little they are willing for me to share that type of intimacy with someone else. Or allowing the possibility of a sexual disease or of having a baby with another person into our relationship. Not to mention the real human emotions that are attached to the intimacy of sex and the real possibility of truly emotionally hurting the one you claim to love. Talk about opening up your relationship to huge problems. And teaching your children that nothing matters more than sexual freedom.

And all this- we will talk about it as a couple and agree-is simply denying how human emotions work. Some woman, maybe men too would agree and then realize they can’t handle it-but the damage will be done.

I honestly can picture in my mind. If I accepted this as a normal life style-there would be a huge possibility -that as soon as I found a man other than my husband who loved me enough that he asked me to be only with him-Hubby would be history.

Why does ones love for you mean that they can’t also enjoy a physical activity with someone else?

If you love one child and have another, then you love the second child, does that mean you now love the first child less?

Re: the possibility of disease, you risk disease every time you go out in public. Choosing to engage in safe sex is a basic starting requirement for anyone who does not have full knowledge of the health of their partner and who is not willing to risk a child. You keep throwing out this argument, but it doesn’t hold water. My wife constantly infects me with germs from her young students. The fact that these are germs from their failure to sufficiently wash their hands as opposed to germs she might instead have gotten from having fun with her principal does not change the fact that she still risks infecting me constantly. Why is one worse than the other?

Not to mention the real human emotions that are attached to the intimacy of sex and the real possibility of truly emotionally hurting the one you claim to love. emotions are not always attached. I have had plenty of sex that did not involve any real emotion on either side. As for hurting the one you “claim” (and I resent that implication, I do love my wife) to love, I ONCE AGAIN stipulate that the spouse/partner must consent to your activities or else it is CHEATING. I am not condoning cheating or dishonesty, and never have.

Hubby would be history. Why? Don’t you love him? Is your capacity for love so small that you can’t love more than one person? See my first point, why are you able to love two children, but only one mate? I love a huge number of people in my family (there are a lot of us), does adding one more mean I love the others less? Does the new man who wants you to himself (greedy) negate your feelings for your existing husband? Why? Why should you be have to choose in the first place?

Taking precautions-does’t always work.
Mentally agreeing doesn’t trump emotion-I suppose it can make you feel better that you were honest-but it isn’t gonna mean much when your love has been KILLED by your logic.

Taking precautions does not always work – this is true. Everything you do involves risk – driving to work this morning, there were hundreds of times when a minor mistake would have resulted in killing someone. Does this make driving immoral? I could have killed 20 people before breakfast today by accident. So should I have just stayed home? And even if I didn’t kill anyone on the way to work today, I might tomorrow, and statistically, odds are good that someone somewhere did today. Is that person immoral?

“Because something bad might happen” is not sufficient reason to write off a whole class of actions as immoral. Unless you are also willing to opine that society is in moral decline since more people are driving than where in the 1800’s, and therefore risking more bad things.

Mentally agreeing doesn’t trump emotionIf you agree to something and then cannot handle the ramifications, it is your failure. Either you lied to yourself or you did not think it through well enough. Either way, it’s your own damn fault. My wife knows she cannot handle this, therefore she has been clear that she does not consider it acceptable. Long before I married her, I accepted this ground rule. I have no regrets. But if she has said she was ok with it, the blame would be at her feet.

Besides, who wants to be with someone who lies to themselves or doesn’t think through a question with such significant ramifications?

Risk-this is an necessary risk-that implies one’s wife or husband is not enough to satisfy their mate in the bedroom. Is there something special about this other person-am I not good enough to satisfy you. Are you sure you are using precautions every time because I really don’t want my sex life destroyed because you are a randy jerk and I have no intention of having to share our income with this other woman if she gets pregnant. And well hell, now our children have a half brother or sister-should we introduce them. Are we gonna have to share custody? Is this fair to our children.

I’m sorry wife or husband-but your grown-you agreed-so what do I care if you are hurt. What do I care if you only thought it was a good idea? What do I care if you only agreed to make me happy. I want to have sex with other people and you are being an immature selfish child. So there!

But maybe, we should change the word from immoral to just a plan stupid and unworkable arrangement based on the consequences based on human nature. You are free to do what one wants but lets not promote it to the whole world as acceptable or a reasonable idea.

But maybe, we should change the word from immoral to just a plan stupid and unworkable arrangement based on the consequences based on human nature.

Yes.. for many people it is a stupid and/or unworkable situation. Though not inherently immoral. Stupid, frequently. Unworkable, frequently. Immoral, no.

That said, the thing which primarily makes it unworkable is this elevation of a physical act (sex) to a special level where it holds talismanic significance. Once this significance is lessened or separated from the idea of love, then it becomes more workable. One is physical, one is emotional. They understood this in the ’60s. They’re starting to figure it out again.

You are free to do what one wants but lets not promote it to the whole world as acceptable or a reasonable idea.

I don’t think most people are, right now, capable of engaging in this kind of practice. But I also think this is largely due to the brainwashing they received from society when they were growing up. In the next few decades, we’re going to see this come to pass.

By 2050, you’re going to be shaking your head and laughing about how Crazy Old Mathius was right all along.

No, it is immoral-because it is just flat out wrong-it would-if ever really accepted by society-destroy the family, hurt children and turn our society into a cesspool of selfish people who care about nothing but Themselves. If that isn’t immoral I don’t know what is. But I don’t think it will ever be completely accepted because people have to live with the consequences that you seem to think only exist because of a puritanical mind set-but it isn’t just a matter of the logical mind-it is a matter of the emotions and the heart. You aren’t gonna reason emotion out of humans-and if the world ever succeeds in doing so. God help us!

Cain’s last question of Gingrich had me laughing so hard the tears were running down my cheeks. The greatest end to a “debate” I have ever seen. And the first time I have ever seen Gingrich struggling with something to say in response. Although his answer was “damn clever”.

Cain surprised me in being able to stay up and not fall on his face when standing next to Newt.

But, New Gingrich was and remains the expert at the table. And was in my opinion the CLEAR WINNER.

There were times when I felt like the two had pre-arranged some of the back and forth. Probably because we are not used to seeing two opponents give compliments and show respect to each other, as these two did.

If these two do another hour with Sean Hannity it may force Romney to do a similar debate. If only the future debate organizers within the early Primary States would grasp this format.

Kathy………….. I am considering changing my advice on Gingrich. I saw some real changes in his views about where we need to go and how to get there. But that also adds to my concern about his propensity to “change his spots”. We need to watch and listen carefully to see if his “change of mind” is real or just another “political stunt”. If he has in fact changed his views then he may make a good TRANSITIONAL President. That is someone who can move us TOWARDS VDLG. Because obviously we can’t get there in 4 to 8 years.

Hear, hear…with Gingrich as the lead. While Cain didn’t convince me of much he is in favor of reform. Newt know his stuff and showed it. I’m still scared of all of them but these two seem to be the least of the evils. Maybe with Paul in the cabinet?

I got stuck on the phone for the last half hour so I missed the last question. Care to spell it out JAC?

They were given a chance to ask each other one last question at the end. Newt went first and asked Cain what has surprised him the most about running for Pres. He said it was the nit pickiness of the MSM and flat out said the MSM is doing a mis-service to the American public. This got a STANDING OVATION.

Then Cain seemed to struggle to get his question out. But it turned out to be a deliberate ploy. Paraphrasing, it went something like this:

“If you, were eh, um, let me ask, er, well , um IF YOU WERE TO BE ELECTED……..um, er, VICE PRESIDENT…….. At this point the audience erupted into absolute laughter and howling. Gingrich was laughing so hard he slumped in his chair and leaned on the table. It took forever for Cain to finish the question. IF YOU WERE TO BE ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT……..WHAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU WOULD WANT THE PRESIDENT TO ASSIGN YOU TO WORK ON???? Again the place erupted.

New finally answers, with tears running down his cheeks. WELL, AFTER HAVING STUDIED THE TENURE OF MY GOOD FRIEND DICK CHENEY, I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE IT WON’T BE TO GO HUNTING!!

🙂 That is funny! I sure hope we can see more debates like this. It’s nice to see a couple of guys who are not afraid to speak their minds.Cain seemed unsure of himself at times and seemed happy for Newt to pick up where he started. They’d be a good team. I wonder if we’ll hear of a Cain/Gingrich ticket before the first primary. Wonder what Romney is thinking now?

We need to KNOW he will fight for what he is proposing. Or, if he can’t get it, that he will explain to the American Public why not and how whatever is decided is at least moving us in the right direction.

What a GAME Saturday night. My heart goes out to Bama-Dad. I felt Alabama was the best team going in and the best team still.

BUT……….THEY LOST. So the prize goes to the winner. Contrary to the talking heads this morning I believe that if LSU loses one game along the way they should still finish ahead of Bama. Head to head competition during the year should matter. So in the JAC rankings Bama stays at No. 2.

Oklahoma State is OVERRATED at No. 2. Stanford is the third best team in the country, in my view, but they are in trouble. Far to many injuries to key personnel and playing a VERY FAST Oregon team next week.

Boise State is starting to suffer their usual late season sloppy play. TCU is next up and that will tell whether they can avoid the mental problem that comes with playing mediocre teams with an occasional good team. TODAY, I think they are the 4th best team in the country. Even with their sloppy play against UNLV.

The big unknown is Oklahoma. Namely, lack of Consistency. I think they beat Oklahoma State. If they don’t then I put them BOTH below No. 6.

If LSU runs the table and there is another undefeated team in the top 5 they those two should play for the national title, regardless. LSU has beaten Alabama and Oregon this year. So they don’t get to play for the marbles. That leaves Standford, Oklahoma State, and Boise State. But quite frankly, I see all three of these ending the year with one loss. Boise has the greatest chance to go undefeated of the bunch but it is not a certainty, given their late season sloppiness.

For those SoCal fans, I left off USC because of the santions. But I think they are probably the third best team in the country, better than Stanford. But again, THEY LOST that game to Standford, so they drop to fourth, ahead of Boise State, if they weren’t ineligible.

Almost forgot Papa Dawg. I put Georgia right BEHIND Boise State at fifth or sixth, depending on whether I count USC.

There was major mourning at the Bama house this weekend. We had a large group over to watch the game Saturday and I told everyone that if the game came down to the kicking game we would lose. I also said that the team making the least amount of mistakes would win; I really hate it sometimes when I am right. Our defense was great but the offence and coaching was sub par. We lost not because of any great things that LSU accomplished but because we did not execute on offence but the bottom line is we lost. I think that LSU will be in the title game if they stay healthy. I feel that Oklahoma, if they play consistent, will beat Oklahoma State. I don’t think that Boise State and Stanford are as good as they think they are. If they want respect then they have to play more of the big boys during the regular season. Love to see either one of those two play against LSU in the big game, if they win that one I’ll give them plenty of credit.

I for one am extremely grateful for the Alabama kicking game! Now the Tigers have to get past two more SEC teams…Ole Miss (not much here) and Arkansas…Arkansas has a mojoe on LSU fors ome reason…they seem to find a way to beat the Tigers. I will hope that LSU finishes the season undefeated and gets a berth to the national championship…I believe it should be a rematch with Alabama…they just look to be the two best teams in the nation…

Darn, I can’t get it to play. Have this problem a lot with fox video’s -don’t know why. What does it say-although I have confidence in what you say-I would like to have some media outlet-highlighting what you say-so that more than just SUFA would hear about it. And I question why Fox, at the very least, doesn’t highlight these situations on their 24 hr. TV networks. Does the government control the media that much? Or is there some reason Fox wouldn’t want to highlight this stuff-it seems to back up the commentators viewpoints at the very least, so I don’t get it.

Curious, what happened with the guys who were collecting information from the city halls. The last I heard they were just drunk and being foolish-which I find absolutely unbelievable.

I am putting away groceries and I busted out laughing thinking…WE WIN!..because Matt will hear us in his ear as he’s cozying up to his wife next time. Not that its going to change your views but have fun explaining to your wife that you can’t seem to get some things off your mind! Karma baby!
🙂 🙂

I have to laugh-I can’t tell you the number of nights, I have spent almost enraged, since I came to this blog-questioning my long held beliefs.

It has been a roller-coaster ride-highly irritating in some respects, but very beneficial at the same time. Unfortunately, I think that ride isn’t gonna ever end. Oh well-I guess learning and questioning is a good thing. But it sure doesn’t make life easier or happier, unfortunately.

Your not as confused as you think. Freedom is not the issue in his post. It is the use of the word “judge” or “judgment”. Remember we went around with him before on the use of that word.

You are correct to say that we must judge, as in determine, if we do in fact have freedom in our hand. If we determine, judge, that we do not, then we do not.

I think the whole thing misses the point where this all started. That being that humans have developed certain “social behaviors” that are supported by, or support, our “psychological” makeup. The intimate nature of sex with committed partners is part of what makes us human and not dogs. These behaviors have come to be called “morals” or “moral behavior”. So as humans we create penalties via peer pressure and cultural teaching that support the “normal state”.

Now that state has changed and may change again. But the evidence is that is has been changing more towards the intimate rather than away from it. Furthermore, this view of sex as part of intimacy and monogamous sexual relationships is NOT a PURITAN imposed value system. If anything, that model was one of “duty to perform” and “sex for procreation only”. The concept of intimacy also exists outside the “Christian” culture. I think its growth has been parallel to the growth of the empowerment of women and advancement of civilization over barbarism.

Yes, I think the word “moral” or “judgement” immediately closes the mind of some. To much religious connotation to deal with based on the false idea that religious belief controls-when what it actually does is convince-even if the religious backing merely stands side by side with secular reasoning.

I find it confusing that Flag-supports freedom as gospel 🙂 but refuses to define it as an absolute truth.

But I am curious how you define-immoral-I have a problem defining the word in a secular way-I have been thinking about how to define it -I’m thinking about using ” Anything which takes the humanity out of man” .

1. Religious norms are often a reflection of human or cultural norms, and not the source of those norms.

2..What is Morality or Moral and of course thus Immoral? I have struggled with this one for a long time as well. Good and evil simply does not fill the need in my view. But that is the basic nature of the concept from the beginning. I will discuss more later after I get lil JAC off to school.

I do not remember the Song of Songs, so I promise to re-read it today. I think the various religious “teachings” on sex probably have more to do with “local custom” and “individual interpretations” than any “Universal Christian” belief. Although the Catholic Church certainly didn’t help “liberate” us.

🙂 Your #1-That wasn’t exactly what I said. I would change that too-Human or cultural norms are a reflection of religious norms and secular ideas-that there isn’t just one source because our culture is a reflection of what the majority of humans ACCEPT as true. If there is any force involved-at least here-it comes from the democratic process of majority vote.

I think my main point-about use of the word moral or immoral-is that the secular world simply objects to the word-because they define it as a purely religious judgement.

I know that there are many things in our culture which are defined as immoral or moral -which are simply moral opinions but I believe that there are other things which are absolute truths-they are true no matter your personal opinions-how to define that difference is hard.

I think part of defining it-or explaining it(read this in the article I posted on relativism)is that you cannot turn a bad into a good.

Killing someone can be both good and bad, depending on the circumstances, but murder is an absolute, you cannot make it a good-you can only prove that it wasn’t murder.

I was watching the movie Chicago again….great musical…..then it hit me…….Billy Flynn (A defense lawyer played by Richard Gere and his defense of adulteress/murderess Roxie Hart,played by Renee Zellweger) and, today in real life, Gloria Allred ( A defense lawyer played by Gloria Allred and her defense of gold digger/liar, Sharon Bialeck, played by Sharon Bialeck)……..have very similar themes. The manipulation of the public and reporters and media to try to prove their guilty clients innocent…gaining money and publicity….by whatever means is necessary.

WOW……if any of you have not seen the movie Chicago…you gotta see it and compare it.

Chicago – my favorite musical. Saw it on broadway several times and on the West End once as well. Great movie as well – not easy converting a musical to a movie, but they definitely succeeded on that one.

Besides the point though. I echo Mathius’ comments — how do you know Bialeck is lying? I’ve seen no evidence that she is lying, not to mention any of the other 4 women that have stepped forward.

@Mathius…..there was evidence in the Clinton thing……there is none…..so far….in the Cain issue. I do not care if 20 women come forward to make allegations. Show me the money!…..just saying it “ain’t right”….and I do so wish that public figures were not held to such strict standards that it would be allowable for them to sue for slander….if it is so. I am NOT saying Cain is innocent…..I am saying that lack of evidence makes it appear so….and I am saying that the grandstanding of Allred and Bialeck casts further dispersion….in my opinion though….

(But remember, that I am also in the middle of briefings without Dr Pepper, eating tuna fish finger sandwiches and chips drinking water) I just have little time…….but will continue to check in.

Thought I would say……that the murder rate on the border will eclipse last years 5,400…..they are on a 7,000 killing pace this year.

The same Amy Jacobson who was caught swimming in a pool with missing mom Lisa Stebic’s husband while getting info for a story. This whole clip is interesting I just don’t like the way this is coming together..or..falling apart.

Excuse me……no one has stepped forward. There are no suits……just settlements. (and Buck, you and I know what nuisance settlements are)….there is no evidence of any sexual harassment as of yet….except women, who will not publicly appear…..except for Ms. Bialeck…though Ms Allred, who waves copies of 2 documents and has not allowed any scrutiny of them….Ms Bialeck, when questioned in an interview, lied about…..oops, mis-spoke…..of her past nuisance settlements of her own, until confronted. She has been fired from six jobs, (all of them because it was sexual harassment and management fault), received settlements from three of them but is not in it for the money. Her home is in default and she needs money very badly……and she comes forward 14 years later for the goodness of womankind….but she does not come forward until Cain is a threat…..and then with high profile legal mouthpiece Allred? When asked a question about taking money for interviews and perhaps a book…she said that I did not come forward to make money……but when pressed….she said.,,”Well, I will think about it”.

She makes her living this way……….so…..her past is in the open. What about the others that wish to remain anonymous….bringing down Cain when he rises above 2% in the polls…..and becomes a front runner.

Until I see proof positive that he is guilty……he is innocent.

BUT, that is not the point that I was bringing out. I found Allred’s diatribe bullshit on tv disgusting. Then I watched Chicago………and it is a great movie turned musical…especially Cell Block Tango and the court room Tap Dance…..

But, just for you two gentlemen…….I will recant the word liar….and use………selective memory and mis-speak.

I liked that whole movie. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to see the play live.

I would just argue that any benefit-of-the-doubt you give Cain should also be given to his accusers. That is all.

And I don’t know, because I am not a business owner, but how many sexual harassment nuisance suits is par for the course? One? Two? Three? Twelve? At what point do you start seeing a pattern emerge? If he had settled 37 sexual harassment suites, would you still believe that they were just nuisance suits by women seeking easy cash from an honest and innocent man? After 250 settlements, would you still be questioning the motives of everyone accusing him? How many such suits have you settled?

No suits, but have been accused of sexual and racial discrimination, harassment, etc… We employee multiple races, genders, sexual orientation. Our response, have your lawyer call ours, whenever. Have also been accused of “stalking” a girl I knew nothing about. My wife told me when we were dating and I had no clue. I had shown no interest in her, we guessed she wanted attention.

lol…..None on my end, sir….although I was accused back in 1988, one time, of telling a woman that was dressed in a very nice looking clingy red dress (Julia Roberts style) that she looked sexy and hot….I meant it…she looked sexy and hot………..I meant it as a compliment but I was reported to my commanding officer and reprimanded because she took offense…..it did not go into my records however, because it would have taken a courts martial and she did not want to do that. She wanted an apology….

So, I told her that she did not look hot and sexy…and that I was wrong to say so. She did not like that either, but the case was closed.

But, if there is a pattern that emerges…….over a period of time…..then I will say that I was wrong…..and if there is hot, burning evidence other than a he said/she said……I will be the first to grovel at your feet.

True, there are plenty of nuisance suits out there. But that doesn’t give us any information as to this case. Right now it is a he said/she said, but I’m a bit confused as to why you automatically believe Cain on this. It isn’t one woman, but 5. Secondly, true 3 of those women have chosen to remain anonymous but there are two pretty convincing reasons for why this is the case: (1) embarassment at publicly stepping forward as a victim and (2) based on my understanding these women are subject to confidentiality agreements stemming from the settlement – the only reason Bialek was able to publicly step forward without fearing recrimination for violation of these agreements is that it was Cain who first spoke out publicly about the specifics of some of these incidents thereby relieving her of said agreement.

Also you raise the issue of Cain being unable to bring a slander suit against these women due to his position as a ‘public figure’ — that is not the case. Although there does exist a higher threshold for public figures, such a threshold would arguably not apply as these allegations relate to private matters and, even if the threshold was applicable, that just requires ‘actual malice’ – she is not some innocent bystander spreading a rumor she heard; if she is lying, clearly this would be actual malice and knowledge of the falsehood.

“(2) based on my understanding these women are subject to confidentiality agreements stemming from the settlement ”
They were granted full release by the NRA last week. They have made their claims public, but acted thru second parties. Isn’t there a legal term for that, preventing it in a court of law??? The court of public opinion has different rules.

Kraushaar has not made a statement about the incident, and Bennett has made it clear that both Kraushaar and her husband see no reason to revisit the claim now despite her former employer’s decision to waive her original confidentiality agreement.

@LOI……..Damn……I forgot to tweak the breast……..after all I am handsome, assertive, not unattractive, really cool without a nifty Jack Sparrow hat, wear a dashing uniform with a lot of ribbons and stuff, shined shoes, have a really cool car, and can dance, cook, wash windows, kill neighbors when appropriate, etc…………..Thank you for straightening me out.

I am very busy, not much time to read everyone’s comments. On this Mathius the swinger topic….. Let us go back in time a bit and ask why do we have the emotion of love? (Think caveman) We may take it for granted, but is there a reason for this emotion? Why do couples often fall in love? Again, we may just accept that they often do. But maybe there is a reason for this emotion of love… could the reason be SURVIVAL?
If a woman had a baby years ago, (before welfare), it was of great benefit to her if there was a loving man around to help with the protection and caring of the family. If not for love, a man would be off with another in no time, and the woman and child would be in for a rough time at surviving alone.

From here we can argue until blue in the face if ‘swinger’ behavior is moral or not. Maybe swingers are the enlightened ones, but I don’t think so, anymore than I accept Mathius’s statistic of a 2% divorce rate for swingers. Where would that stat come from? Are they certified as ‘swingers’ on the divorce papers?

Back to work. I am chipping corn stalks and my flock (herd is more accurate) of chickens are having a blast eating everything in sight.

Speaking of work… I find it interesting looking at some state of upper New York census records from the 1800s. EVERYONE was working! Even the laziest/weakist cared for at least a cow generally. People were either farmers or had a job and farmed on the side, or boarded/labored on a farm. Big farms considering the technology of that time. Often 10 kids and they were ‘farmers’ too. I am sure they consumed most of what was produced rather than selling the produce. Natural born Capitalists (you know… the ‘simple’ capitalism of wealth creation and compunding of farm produce). They had no time for ‘swingers’ or any other silly thing we today have time to argue about.
Later…..

@ Buck….( on a short break ) …… I did not say I believed Cain. I am giving the benefit of doubt to him until proven otherwise. First, I will never buy the thought pattern that it would be embarrassing as a victim. That is a free ride. No free rides if you are going to accuse. Secondly, if it were such a bad deal, there were no suits filed. This leads me to believe that it was easy money. No one, to my knowledge, got anything more than a three month severance settlement. It stinks. Third, I understand confidentiality agreements and have actually been party to one where no guilt or innocence or right or wrong was declared….which I disagreed with, but the lawyers understood that paying off someone to make it “go away” was less costly to fighting even a winner in court just to prove a point. So, right off, settlement agreements are suspect to me. If these women were so incensed and it was so traumatic, then why not go after the big bucks? Fourth, the lady with Allred…well, the whole damn thing smells of a barnyard. Especially with Allred…..that is why Chicago came to mind. I do not know about a 5th. Looking for it when I can.

So far, I see easy money. As I said before, if there is compelling documentation and evidence showing otherwise, I will be the first to say Cain was wrong….until then….it is even money.

And, as in the case the lady now, her background has come into play…..all the others should come into play as well.

If I were Cain, on this 4th person, go after her for slander. I think she is malicious and with forethought. But that is my opinion. The timing of it stinks as well….and there are two thoughts of school in my mind on this one. Is it republican led or is it democratic lead. It is lead by someone…the timing is suspect. One thought is that with Cain out of the way…one less repub to worry about. My other thought is with Cain out of the way, it takes even the remotest chance of splitting a black vote in a Presidential election.

In only eight and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have devoted a staggering 99 stories to sexual harassment charges against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. In comparison, eight days into Bill Clinton’s scandal’s with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, there were a combined eight reports.

Why believe Cain? We know the media lied to us about Clinton and his sex scandals. Even NOW would not speak out against him when Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault, a criminal offense. Sexual harassment is civil, not criminal. We know the media lied about Obama’s relationship with Ayres and Rev. Wright. If a proven liar keeps insisting something, I’m prone to automatically think it’s a lie, until PROVEN true. The media has shown they report based on their agenda, who they like, not “truth” or news.

I think the point is that we should not prejudge at all, either for or against until we have the evidence before us. To do otherwise would make as much sense as a jury rendering its verdict before the trial.

I can agree that Cain is innocent until proven guilty through the evidence and at the same time I can see why some on the accusers wish to remain silent as well and stay out of the issue. Settlements mean just that – it is settled and we don’t know who is or isn’t at fault when confidentiality is agreed to and there have been no admissions of guilt.

It would be like saying we can’t believe you are a retired Colonel unless you prove it, but we shouldn’t call you a liar unless you were proven to be lying.

True and a very good point. But, in the case of the one that I was talking about, she did. She said that she had never filed any other type of suit or had any other type of settlement and she has. But,your point is well taken.

I am very sensitive to making accusations without proof…and for a woman to stand up and say…well, I can’t prove it because no one was around to see it…can still ruin a career. Our political correctness has actually hurt us…not helped us. Now, in my opinion, yesterday Cain opened up the polygraph issue and agreed to take one….but, and he has a great point, I would not take a polygraph exam with questions from Allred. So, we are at a point now, that a person has to take a polygraph to prove his is correct? Let us assume that he does this…..and passes. Would you now agree that he has a libel and slander suit?

We see accusations made daily in America without proof at the time the accusation is made. The proof comes later – usually in court.

Now in a situation where the accusation is made and it is not made in a legal process, well then proof must be demanded before one can proceed to attempt to destroy the character and reputation of the person being accused. Without any proof then the accuser should be dragged into a legal proceeding for libel, or slander, or character assassination – whatever the legal options are, if the accused so chooses.

If I were advising Mr. Cain, my advice would be to NOT take a polygraph. First, he is the defendant in this case and when a defendant is asked to take a polygraph they are being tasked with the burden to prove their innocence/lack of guilt. That’s never the way it should be in any issue. Second, it is not acceptable that one should have to be responsible for proving their innocence whenever they are accused of some misbehavior – if that was the case we could get every political candidate on the box and prove their honesty in every issue they open their mouths about.

Now should he take a polygraph and pass – yes, it strengthens his case for being falsely/wrongly accused, but does it make him innocent? Not necessarily, since the trustworthiness/accuracy of polygraphs has always been brought into question, which is why the courts – rightly – will not accept the results as evidence (generally, there may bbe exceptions I am unaware of).

(I hope this posts correctly. I am having difficulties today with wordpress – this being the fourth time I have tried to get this comment posted. ::sigh::)

Our poverty standard is above the rest of the world … Gee, I wonder why? For a guy who swear allegiance to freedom and non-violence, you sure are willing to excuse the way this country exploits other nation states, their resources and people. Watching this makes me like Hugo Chavez just a little bit more, BF …

So the base of your accusation is that an “Imperialistic” nation would naturally have a higher living standard for poverty than other nations.

Yet you love to use the poor of Imperialistic European nations as evidence of Capitalism’s failure.

Let alone that your argument is nothing but a STRAW MAN. It has nothing to do with the primary argument. Namely that the condition of the “poor” has improved more under Capitalism than under the various forms of Socialism. To claim that the Capitalist Nations, especially the USA, have “exploited” those used as examples, Soviet Union, China and N. Korea, is ridiculous.

Though fundamental I totally disagree with Milton on government spending – he makes, here, two very important points that are much worth considering…

(1) the People choose what government expenditures best represent a value, that is “are they getting their money’s worth”

I think I argue convincingly that such a thing cannot exist – but for those that still are not convinced, this level of acceptance is ..worth the money (and the violence) is a necessary condition… true?

(2) For those who agree, therefore the expenditures must be as close to the people as possible for the benefit to be maximized (…as bad as it is…)

The fight is on in Texas. A Washington DC Federal Court has blocked the Texas redistricting because of the method used to determine redistricting that has been done for decades. The theory behind the case was that lines that are drawn can be drawn in a manner that negates the voting power of minorities……it is claimed. So, with such a large Hispanic population in Texas, a challenge was made, and successful, to stop the redistricting lines and put it in the hands of the courts. But this will take place AFTER the 2010 elections. What was missed, however, was that in Texas, you must be a legal citizen and resident to vote. The issue was that a Hispanic district must have a Hispanic representation. Two democrats filed the suit to block it and they got a court in Washington DC (no federal court in Texas would block it)…to stay the implementation of the lines until a court so rules.So, the Texas Attorney General said….” that is cool, so now we will enforce the citizen rule and you must prove your identity and residence in order to vote “…..now the Hispanics are yelling and screaming that to do that will make it so it still nullifies the minority (HIspanic Vote)…….So, their little effort is about to back fire. It will nullify illegal immigrants from obtaining and being able to vote without proving legal residency and citizenship and that includes names and addresses……so….15 people living at the same address will cause scrutiny and they certainly do not want to do that.

And now Perry has pissed a lot of us off……he is in trouble for his Governor’s seat.

It’s kinda funny, deportation is up under Obama, but his coverage ignores that fact. The sanctuary cities have a real problem that they protect the violent criminals along with the illegals. Watching Perry now makes me wonder how he ever became Gov.? National liberal media coverage or was he just not up to this big a show?

He is out of his league……totally. As I said weeks ago, he needs to stay as governor where he has actually done some good….but since he is running for President, his stance has changed on some issues and he is playing politics…..which, as Texans, we do not like. He will have a problem here next time. We already have a replacement in mind.

At LOI…….according to what we have to do down here, deportation is now including numbers that we catch at the border and simply turn them back…not deportation proceedings. Technically, we have deported them according to Washington….however, there is still in place a standing order to NOT call ICE when we catch them. SImply turn them around.

The White House’s immigration lawyers have issued yet another bureaucratic order that will curb the election-year deportation of illegal immigrants, and perhaps spur the supply of Hispanic voters.

The new memo will shelter many illegals who have not committed violent crimes, or who are not suspected of being a national security threat, from routine deportation efforts by professionals in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. There are roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, including roughly seven million in the workforce.

The order is a “positive step … [because] it lets officers focus solely on the job at hand, [which is] referring most enforcement actions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency formed for that purpose,” said a Nov. 8 statement from Eleanor Pelta, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

According to Pelta, the memo “realigns the agency’s goals to better reflect its original and intended purpose… [which is] adjudicating immigration petitions and applications,” not enforcement. The AILA’s membership consists of lawyers who are hired by foreigners to avoid deportation, and to gain a share of the many valuable benefits that come with residency and citizenship.

The nine-page memo is titled “Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens.”

Well he’s no Stossel, but an interesting rant. I think it’s funny he thinks our congress has been bought by big business/big money, but wants our president to stand up against it. Sure, you guys stop taking all this dirty money while I raise a billion to buy my re-election……

But Terry,,,,,collective bargaining is just what it says…….the state has to bargain harder…that is all. I do not like unions and never have….but having been in the spot of negotiations before, simply negotiate tough. Want to kill the state unions? It is really easy…..negotiate the dues check off out of the contract. Make the union collect their dues individually. Dues checkoff is not a mandatory bargaining issue and it is easy to classify that into an economic strike….which allows for permanent replacements.

The mandate will be decided by the SCOTUS……..if they take it.

What say you, Buck? The SCOTUS does not have to take it…..think they will?

I think those crowing about the Obama Care initiative as being a rejection of the same may be interpreting the results incorrectly. Especially in light of the “collective bargaining” initiative.

If we think of the results in terms of the voters rejecting Govt restricting our choices then the results make more sense. They didn’t want Govt dictating that unions have not right to bargain (most don’t get the difference between public and private) nor that they “must” buy into Obama Care.

So it was a rejection of the concept of “mandatory coverage for ALL” but not an outright rejection of the rest of Obama Care. I expect that the Republican effort to repeal Obama Care in total will be opposed by the public at large and will cost any Candidate proposing the same, as opposed to those proposing to simply TWEEK Obama Care. They will not understand, nor care, that the whole thing is a house of cards and must be repealed in order to keep the desirable parts.

Layoffs is one option. So is “re-negotiating” their existing contracts. Now don’t get me wrong on all this. I believe “public unions” to be immoral.

I just don’t believe that attacking public unions through collective bargaining was a good “political” move given the nature of the bigger problems. Now I admit I don’t know the details of the Ohio law that was overturned. I think it is appropriate to limit bargaining to the actual units involved. The problem comes with the State’s role in education. This opens the door to State level negotiations with the Teacher’s Union. The police and firemen, however, should be completely local anyway. So I don’t understand why their collective bargaining should be eliminated.

Great point JAC….it is not governments right to disavow collective bargaining…as I said…bargain harder…..but one could also conclude that it is not governments right to mandate collective bargaining either.

The issue to me on Obama care is the mandate and penalties. If I do not want it….I should not have to take it. And if I elect not to take it, I have a right to not have my taxes increased or pay a penalty for it. I use and pay for other insurance rather than go to the VA…..the reason, is I feel that I get quicker treatment….not necessarily better…..but faster. That is my choice. I should not have to suffer a rise in insurance premiums to pay for others….but we have been down this road……it is the mandates and penalties that I am opposed to.

Good morning Colonel. My Texican friend, you and I are in complete agreement here. Govt is the problem, whether attacking or requiring “collective bargaining”, its actions are counter freedom, liberty and most importantly……….justice.

I agree-this law is too extreme-but it’s the abortions rights people’s fault -if things get extreme, in the attempt to stop, the systematic program the abortion rights people have used to extend this “right” to include literally anytime between conception and taking the first breath. Just claim you can’t mentally handle it-and voila- dead baby-problem solved.

Sorry D-I don’t understand the question-I was merely ranting-providing a tit for tat-so to speak-If those against abortion have run to the extreme in this instance-it is nothing compared to how the pro-abortion side has been extreme in their fight for this “so-called right”

I have always looked at pregnancy-as two human beings residing inside of one-I agree that life begins at conception-but I fear a law like this could be used to dismiss the mothers rights completely-and she does have some. No one has the right to demand that she die-in order to save the life of the human residing within her. I simply don’t believe the ordinary individual rights arguments fits this situation because there are two lives involved.

One other point-I want to make-just because I want too 🙂 From my reading there are very few instances where it is necessary to have an abortion to save the mother-in most cases it is a matter of having treatments or not -which would kill the baby. Which isn’t an abortion.

OK, I understand. Your point is the same I was alluding to with the absurdity of the examples in the article. It also goes to how Govt Law over complicates the situation by creating conflicts where “natural” or “common law” or at least “common sense” would resolve the conflict easily.

The Doctor must act to the benefit of BOTH patients. The mother must act on behalf of herself AND, as guardian, her unborn child. The child has rights but not the freedom to make a decision. Between them and the “father”, hopefully, they will make the best choice for both the mother and unborn child.

Recognizing the unborn as a “person” in Govt Law does not automatically nor necessarily create conflicts in this basic relationship of responsibilities.

I would like to add that the ONLY reason our laws define a “person” is so that we can determine when our other “common law” norms against “murder” can be applied. Making an unborn child a “legal person” does require review and possible change in murder laws to avoid unnecessary litigation. Such as for miscarriage.

I disagree with you only in the idea that Rights do not apply. Both parties have rights. But not all people are free to exercise those rights. Thus the guardianship relations between adults and children, for example. We also are not applying the concept of “Rights” correctly when we use the term “Right to Life” in the context that a person has a right to not be killed period.

I wasn’t saying rights do not apply-I was simply saying that the individual right to choose doesn’t trump the babies right to life-and the babies right to life doesn’t trump the mothers right to life. It is a special situation. And I agree with what you said, except that the only way this common sense solution can work is if the societal norm is that killing babies in the womb is wrong. We could do away with all abortion laws right now and planned parenthood would stay and there would just be more late term abortions,IMO. The relationship between the doctor and the family doing what is best for both or making those hard decisions in cases of medical problems- would probably be exactly what we both think-but abortion just to get rid of a problem would stay.

The presumption in my comment was that WE as a Society accepted the concept that the unborn is a “person”. Thus the killing of such a person for “convenience” would not be acceptable. I was trying to show that the FEAR that such a law would create “legal chaos” is due to the abundance of the other ridiculous Govt Laws and not “normal human rules” for solving such moral dilemmas.

So we are back to my first comment- 🙂 it’s the lefts fault-they created the baby ain’t a human BS philosophy just to extend the individual rights of choice and privacy-so they could have sex without responsibility.

Yup VH, you’re on to us now. We got together at one of our secret meetings and decided that hey, if we can convince people that a fetus isn’t akin to a living, breathing human being, we can expand on the rights of individual choice and privacy, all so we can have sex! You got us…

Still not following how it is the “left’s fault” that the far right has gone off the crazy train putting forward these ‘extreme’ (your words) bills to redefine personhood. Even if you find that the left has pushed too far to allow for abortion rights, how does that necessitate running all the way to the extreme position as your only recourse?

Fair enough, but I still don’t understand how you can say this proposed amendment was the ‘left’s fault’. It was the ‘right’s fault’ for over-reaching with a badly worded amendment with far-reaching consequences that weren’t thought out. And the far right paid at the polls for it – it was soundly rejected.

Wait…VH, you are arguing that yes this law is way too extreme, but it is our fault (‘our’ meaning those of us who support a woman’s right to choose) for somehow making you (‘you’ meaning those who are anti-abortion) jump further and further to your own extreme?? I’m baffled…

Yes I am. And I didn’t use the word Way-I don’t even think the word extreme is the right word to use for this law-life does begin at conception-I’m just afraid it would be used by the extreme-the same way the abortion law has been used by the extreme on the pro-abortion side. They are just using the law to save life. The left used it to make it okay to destroy life.

Please read my comment again. I did not “advocate” for massive new laws.

I explained that if the Personhood law had passed it would have required a massive set of new laws to deal with all the “what if’s” posed by all the nit picking, hair splitting attorneys. Yes, that was taking advantage of a target rich environment.

Other key point. These laws would be required primarily because of OTHER Govt laws on the books, and which are not necessary. Like all things GOVT, the more you try to fix the more complex and the more the need to fix. On and on it goes, eventually sliding down the rat hole.

I know where you stand. And I generally agree (on this point) that such a law would create massive – MASSIVE – conflicts in the system with existing laws.

So, to put the conversation on different footing: Congratulations, the VLDG has just swept the Presidency and a filibuster-proof majority in both houses. Following a freak meteor strike, President JAC has just appointed replacements for the entire supreme court and all federal circuit judges (apparently they were all attending the same convention which was hit by the meteor). With no one in the new government interested in seeking a second term, what does abortion law in the US look like by the end of your term?

That would depend on the desires of the people living within a particular state. That is if we assume no major REVISION of the Constitution or other fundamental laws. Thus my comment about the question being too simple.

Here is the fundamental question. Do the people living within a political boundary have the Right to impose upon the freedom or Rights of others?

Do the people within a political boundary have the Right to determine what constitutes a “crime” and then establish punishments for such crimes?

Perhaps to give you something to chew on, I believe that the “right to privacy” basis of Roe vs Wade was pure ACTIVISM and absolute B.S.. We have a Right to Privacy and the Constitution did not give the FEDERAL govt the authority to violate that right, without due process.

Did I forget to mention that a simultaneous and highly suspicious gas leak explosion occurred during a governor’s conference which was attended by all 50 state governors and lieutenant governors as well as the leaders of all state senates. Cuomo was not in attendance because he was killed after being hit in the head with a foul ball hit by A-rod the day before.

All positions were filled by special election. VLDG swept the lot, except for one governorship which was won by write-in by Black Flag, who declined to accept the seat – no one is quite sure who is in charge of that state.

Ok, same question. What does abortion law look like state/nation wide?

And, before you dare say local law, I forgot to mention that a cholera outbreak wiped out every mayor, LT mayor, and city counsel member nationwide. They, too, were all replaced by VDLG-types. All of them.

@ Buck……interesting question for you….your opinion. IF the SCOTUS side steps for now, and various federal courts have ruled different ways…..what does this actually do to the plan itself? Does it stay until there is a decision or does it go to state regulation for the short run?

A follow up….on this issue, with Robert’s Court taking a decided rightward swing….what benefit is a sidestep as a judicial practicality? I think it is a 6-3 decision anyway…even with Sotomayor…but I do see the SCOTUS taking a more activism role. So, what is the benefit of a procedural move?

This is why I have a feeling SCOTUS will take the case, since there is already disagreement amongst the Circuit Courts. If SCOTUS was to sidestep on procedural grounds, they will almost be forced to take the case up on its merits next term.

You see a 6-3 decision against the constitutionality of the law? I see it the other way around. It is going to be very difficult for Scalia to argue against himself from other recent decisions in which he has basically stated that such an individual mandate would be constitutional. Now, don’t get me wrong, if there is anyone on the Court that could make an effective argument with themselves, it would be Scalia!

I just came up with a very accurate definition of abortion-it also makes the idea that one must ever perform one to save the mothers life -very doubtful.

Abortion is the removal of a developing human baby, at different developmental ages, for the purpose of assuring that said baby dies.

Hmmm, this also makes the idea that a baby should be able to survive outside the womb as a basis for determining life a little weird because they don’t even allow that possibility to occur-because the reason it is called an abortion is the absolute certainty that the child will be killed.

Wanted to know if it was yours or somebody else before I offered my thoughts. I suggest you think about the wording a little bit more. Consider whether it really covers the “exceptions” that even you would consider as well as “when” the abortion is conducted. I think the lawyers would have a field day with your definition and could use it against your own position.

OK, lets put all the silly stuff aside and discuss whether this is an appropriate FEDERAL GOVT function. This is just another public/private partnership….for those tracking such things.

” President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees — the Christmas Tree Tax — to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).

The fee is 15 cents on all fresh trees for growers who sell more than 500 trees a year, a cost that will no doubt be passed along to consumers.

I looked around a little and found an article in the Miami Herald that goes into this more from the growers’ perspective. The alleged point of the fee… or tax… or levy… whatever — is to stem the growth of the artificial tree industry to promote the sale of real trees (by making them a little more expensive?):

Akin to similar programs that promote milk, beef and cotton, the new Christmas tree program will impose on U.S. domestic producers and importers an initial fee of 15 cents per tree.

A 12-member board will direct the money to generic ads and other promotions, as well as research. The promotions, according to the Agriculture Department, will present “a favorable image of Christmas trees to the general public,” with the intent of improving the public “perception” of Christmas trees and, hence, their sales.”

SPECIAL NOTE: The 15 cent tax WILL NOT be passed along to consumers. The price of trees is determined by Demand, as there is a glut of trees on the market these days.

OTHER SPECIAL NOTE: Guess which state is one of the biggest tree growers and which state has a basketball coach related to the Pres. OK, I couldn’t resist that one. This has nothing to do with the new “tax”.

OK, lets run with your Armageddon example and assume that ONLY VDLG types came to control all levels of govt. But lets cut to the chase. We would have to further assume that the VDLG types were starting from scratch. At least that makes the answer much easier.

I would NOT expect ANY Govt Laws banning abortions entirely, nor any laws restricting its use.

However, I would expect that while abortion is available, it would be used primarily in cases of rape or mother’s health. It would be considered morally unacceptable to terminate an unborn human simply for convenience.

What mechanism would be in place to encourage/coerce moral behavior such that they are used almost exclusively in this way? Why wouldn’t people behave exactly as they wish and just do it discretely?

That is not to say that I think most abortions currently are a matter of “convenience,” but I do recognize that those occur as well. That said, in you scenario, what pressure exists to minimize these?

Put another way, you suggest that it would be considered morally unacceptable, but obviously many people do consider it acceptable. So if the government won’t outlaw it, how are you changing society to the point where everyone agrees on this point and exert the pressure bring it about?

Does that question make sense?
1. Why wouldn’t people just hide it?
2. Why would society suddenly agree with your view?

They would be free to do what they want. But a society of people who understood and supported VDLG based on the underlying philosophical principles would place a very high value on human life. They would not make decisions to eliminate such life lightly.

Pressure comes from the same place as all free societies. FAMILY

Since most VDLG types survived, there are very few who would view in morally acceptable.

So now you are changing the “hypothetical” aren’t you. You asked what we VDLG types would do if we were the ones left. Now you are asking what we would do if we were magically put in charge of all govt but the makeup of society did not change. This of course would prevent us from controlling Govt but lets put that little contradiction aside.

Well in this case the pressure points would change. From Family alone to a mix of family and various media efforts. It would be up to one group to persuade the other.

I would also expect that there would be some communities where it might be outlawed or restricted by laws. This would occur in towns/cities where 67% of the people supported restrictions. Yes, 67% is arbitrary but it fits your desired example of a govt and a mixed value populace. VDLG would have a higher threshold for imposing restrictions on the freedoms of others. But the State and Fed govt would NOT pass any such laws.

“I would NOT expect ANY Govt Laws banning abortions entirely, nor any laws restricting its use.”

Do you have laws banning murder? Restricting it?

For people who believe that babies are humans, there is little difference. Whether someone else agrees or not is irrelevant. If I believe murder is happening, am I supposed to say, “eh, they think it’s not human so I can’t stop them.”

Your free to try and stop them, and you are free to suffer the consequences of your actions.

While there are people who consider abortion equal to murder, I don’t think they form a significant number of the total. The majority understand there are “exceptions”. So in this sense, Society’s accepted meaning of “murder” does not apply. There will always be outliers to the societal “norm”. But that does not necessarily make their “opinion” relevant.

There really are no laws “banning” murder. The laws make the act of murder punishable by certain actions, subject to the law.

So lets go to the next step. Under VDLG, what is the “penalty” for murder??? What if the penalty is that the offender must make restitution to the family of the person murdered? A concept that is very consistent with the principles of freedom, liberty and justice.

Why does your “opinion” of what is murder trump mine? If you allow that your opinion permits you to use government to control (by means of threat of violent coercion) my actions, then you allow that my opinion permits me to do likewise to you. You believe that fetuses (or whatever the plural of fetus is) have a “right to life,” but I may not – yet you deem it acceptable to override me based on your beliefs.

So, if I believe that animals are living creatures with a “right to life” such that killing a cow (tasty as they are) is murder, am I right to pass a law to stop you from consuming meat?

Example of how murder laws are written. This is from Oregon, and I might add far more complicated than those I have read from some other states.

163.005¹
Criminal homicide
(1) A person commits criminal homicide if, without justification or excuse, the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another human being.
(2) “Criminal homicide” is murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or aggravated vehicular homicide.
(3) “Human being” means a person who has been born and was alive at the time of the criminal act. [1971 c.743 §87; 2007 c.867 §4]

163.115¹
Murder
• • affirmative defense to certain felony murders
• • sentence of life imprisonment required
• • minimum term
(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.118 (Manslaughter in the first degree) and 163.125 (Manslaughter in the second degree), criminal homicide constitutes murder:
(a) When it is committed intentionally, except that it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the homicide, the defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance;
(b) When it is committed by a person, acting either alone or with one or more persons, who commits or attempts to commit any of the following crimes and in the course of and in furtherance of the crime the person is committing or attempting to commit, or during the immediate flight therefrom, the person, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants:

Here you go Lions. Ace Obama Adm. checking you guys out! Because they don’t have enough of their own problems or something.

BTW, my opinion, JoePa should not be on the sidelines (or booth) ever again. Shameful on the part of so many. They want to attempt to take control of the situation, they immediately suspend anyone and everyone who may have had knowledge of this and did not go to the authorities. This is so much bigger than a football.

Way to go my dear. You have found another way to capture my concerns. I try to maintain an active mind and as I said the other day, I want to see PROOF he has had his Come to Jesus Meeting and changed his ways. I would love to see him debate Obama. But I am not willing to give him my “vote” just to see that happen.

I loved the video. Funny how the John Birch Society President was putting forth ideas that are CONTRARY to the picture painted by the Democrat Party and the Media. That should get a rise 🙂

Hope all is well on the east side of the Lake and that your Ribeye was most delicious.

Your own citation does not support your assertions about a deliberate use of the word as a pejorative or slur. Just because a few political operatives decide to make an issue of it in order to cast aspersions on their opponents doesn’t make it truth. It appears the real source is the attempt to separate the Democrats from having a monopoly on “democratic” or “democracy”. Which is of course exactly what was intended when they took the name.

So are you a Democrat or a Democratic??? I’m neither. I’m a liberal and/or a libertarian, depending on which of my personalities you happen to ask.

As for the “Democrat Party,” whether the original intent was to do as you (and some in the wiki article) suggest or whether it is as I (and some in the wiki article) suggest, it is not the correct name.

Democrat is a noun.
Democratic is an adjective.

I remember how Bush did this all the time, and there was no missing the pejorative nature of his use. Nobody is under the delusion that Democrats have the corner on democracy, so to pretend that you use the term to make that distinction is disingenuous. You don’t need to make that distinction because it’s obvious and not at all in contention. So what other purpose could there be for deliberately using an incorrect term to refer to them?

The alternative explanation I provided was included in YOUR citation. I did not create it myself.

So if Democratic is an adjective then how can the NAME of the party be Democratic, with a Capital D?????

I have no personal knowledge of the “intent” or “motives” of the various people who have used Democrat Party in various ways. I expect that neither do you or those who love to make such a stink about it. I do know what my motives were and you certainly aren’t even close.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the Democrats would select a name that muddles the use and meaning of language.